[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22664-22695]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

                                S. 1934

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

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

       (a) In General.--Section 409(d) of the Vision 100--Century 
     of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176; 49 
     U.S.C. 41731 note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
       (b) Requirement for Continuation of Essential Air Service 
     by Certain Air Carriers for 90 Days After Termination of 
     Contract.--Any air carrier that provides essential air 
     service to a place described in section 409(a) of the Vision 
     100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-
     176; 49 U.S.C. 41731 note) and has a contract for the 
     provision of such essential air service that expires on 
     September 30, 2007, shall continue to provide such essential 
     air service to such place until at least the earlier of--
       (1) January 1, 2008; or
       (2) the date on which the Secretary of Transportation 
     identifies a new air carrier to provide such essential air 
     service.
       (c) Air Carrier Defined.--In this section, the term ``air 
     carrier'' has the meaning provided such term in section 40102 
     of title 49, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici);
  S. 1940. A bill to reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management 
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
reauthorizing the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, which became 
law in 1996. In the 10 years since it was formalized by Congress, the 
Rio Puerco Management Committee has helped facilitate a collaborative 
approach for the restoration of the highly degraded Rio Puerco 
Watershed, which at 7,000 square miles is the largest tributary to the 
Rio Grande in terms of area and sediment.
  The Rio Puerco was once known as New Mexico's breadbasket, with water 
supply and soil tilth to support that reputation. Over time, extensive 
ecological changes have occurred in the Rio Puerco Watershed, some of 
which have resulted in damage to the watershed that has seriously 
affected the economic and cultural well-being of its inhabitants. This 
has resulted in the loss of existing communities that were based on the 
land and were self-sustaining. According to the Bureau of Land 
Management, while the Rio Puerco contributes less than 10 percent of 
the total water to the Rio Grande, it represents the primary source of 
sedimentation entering the Upper Rio Grande with far reaching effects 
throughout the lower portions of the river. For example, the Rio Puerco 
contributes the majority of the silt entering Elephant Butte Reservoir 
about 65 miles downstream of its confluence with the Rio Grande.
  The Rio Puerco Management Committee has become one of the most 
effective collaborative land management efforts in the Southwest, 
particularly given the challenges posed by the multi-jurisdictional 
nature of the watershed. It has successfully developed and implemented 
proposals for watershed rehabilitation on a collaborative basis with 
participation from private stakeholders, various Federal agencies, 
Native American Indian tribes, State agencies, and local governments. 
For example, the committee took on the bold proposal of returning the 
Rio Puerco to its original streambed, originally altered to accommodate 
the construction of State Highway 44, now U.S. Highway 550, in the late 
1960s. According to the BLM, the channel became a primary contributor 
of erosion and sediment in the river main stem, and even began 
advancing toward U.S. 550, threatening the highways stability. This 
large-scale project is one of only three in the entire country that has 
attempted to reintroduce a channelized river into its original meander.
  I am proud to say that the committee's holistic approach has also 
facilitated low-tech but time-intensive restoration projects and 
community outreach initiatives which have actively engaged community 
members and the Youth Conservation Corps. This has helped develop a 
sense of ownership and community responsibility for the restoration of 
the Rio Puerco while also providing our State's youth valuable resource 
management skills and teaching them how to be responsible stewards of 
the land now and in the future.
  I am pleased Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of this reauthorization 
bill, and I thank him for always being a strong advocate for this 
program. The Rio Puerco Management Committee has demonstrated the 
achievements that can be made by working cooperatively to advance the 
restoration of and maintenance of this watershed. It is also clear that 
more work needs to be done, and it is my sincere hope that the Congress 
and the administration will continue to work in a similar cooperative 
manner to ensure adequate funding is provided for this important 
program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the need for targeted restoration work 
in the Rio Puerco watershed came to my attention during the early 
1990s. Congress began funding local efforts to improve the Rio Puerco 
area in 1992, and the Rio Puerco Management Program was formally 
authorized by the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 
1996.
  The Rio Puerco Basin is the largest tributary to the Middle Rio 
Grande Basin. The watershed encompasses nearly 5 million acres and acts 
as drainage for portions of 7 counties in my home State of New Mexico. 
The Rio Puerco watershed is a major source of silt in Elephant Butte 
Reservoir. In fact, the Department of Interior's U.S. Geological Survey 
has identified the Rio Puerco as having one of the highest sediment 
concentrations. The objective of the collaborative program is to 
curtail sedimentation from washing down the Rio Puerco to the Rio 
Grande and Elephant Butte. As intended, this program has helped to 
facilitate cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies along 
with local landowners to improve the health of the Rio Puerco watershed 
by working together to implement projects that help control erosion and 
reduce the flow of sediment into the Rio Grande.
  I believe the program has accomplished much during its tenure, and I 
fully support its objectives. I am pleased to join my colleague from 
New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, as a cosponsor of this bill, and I look 
forward to working with him to see that this important program is 
reauthorized.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 1942. A bill to amend part D of title V of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide grants for the renovation of 
schools; to the Committee on Health, Education, labor, and Pensions.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public 
School Repair and Renovation Act. I offer this legislation to meet the 
urgent need for support to repair crumbling schools in disadvantaged 
and rural school districts.
  We all agree that school infrastructure requires constant 
maintenance. Unfortunately, far too many schools have been forced to 
neglect ongoing issues, most likely due to lack of funds, which can 
lead to health and safety problems for students, educators and staff. 
The most recent infrastructure report card issued by the American 
Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a ``D'' grade. Now, I 
don't know many parents who would find ``D'' grades acceptable for 
their children. So why on earth would we stand by while

[[Page 22665]]

the state of the buildings in which our children learn are assigned 
such a grade?
  Despite the declining condition of many public schools, Federal grant 
funding is generally not available to leverage local spending. In 
fiscal year 2001, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee which I then chaired, I was able 
to secure $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. I continue to 
hear nothing but positive feedback from educators across the country 
about that funding.
  But that one-time investment amounted to nothing more than a drop in 
the bucket compared to the estimated national need. In 1995, the 
General Accounting Office reported that the nation's K-12 schools 
needed some $112 billion in repairs and upgrades. A more recent study 
by the National Education Association put the estimate as high as $322 
billion.
  I have been heartened by the recent boom in local and State spending 
on school facilities. However, the distribution of these recent 
investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to the most affluent 
communities which are better able to fund new investments without 
outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the Building Educational 
Success Together, BEST, coalition found that the quality of your 
child's school is dependent upon his or her racial or ethnic background 
and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood.
  Local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost 
twice as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on 
a per-pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with 
predominantly caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2000 more per 
student in school repair and construction spending than their peers 
living in school districts with predominantly minority enrollment.
  The Public School Repair and Renovation Act addresses that inequity 
by targeting school renovation grants to those communities that have 
struggled to fund needed repairs. The bill builds on the model States 
found successful in the fiscal year 2001 program. States would receive 
funding based on their most recent Title I allocation to initiate a 
competitive grant program targeted to poor and rural school districts. 
States have the discretion to require matching funds from the local 
district bringing the potential funding to much more than the $1.6 
billion Federal investment.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and 
Mikulski for signing on to this bill. In addition, I am pleased to 
report this legislation has the support of a diverse group of national 
education organizations representing teachers, school boards, school 
administrators, and principals.
  The Public School Repair and Renovation Act takes a much needed step 
forward in fixing the inequity in public school facilities. Something 
is seriously wrong when children go to modern, gleaming movie theaters, 
shopping malls, and sports arenas, but attend public schools with 
crumbling walls and leaking roofs. This sends exactly the wrong message 
to children about the importance of education.
  I hope that my colleagues will support the Public School Repair and 
Renovation Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Casey, Ms. Collins, Mr. Graham, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
        Stevens, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1944. A bill to provide justice for victims of state-sponsored 
terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Justice for 
Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act with my colleagues, Senators 
Specter, Menendez, Cornyn, Coleman, Lott, Lieberman, Schumer, Clinton, 
Casey, Collins, Graham, Biden, Stevens, and Feinstein.
  I am proud to introduce this legislation on behalf of the many 
Americans who have suffered at the hands of State sponsors of 
terrorism. This important legislation will allow victims of state 
sponsored terrorism to have their day in court. It will do so by 
enabling these individuals to both sue for liability and seek financial 
compensation from the states, such as Iran, which committed these 
murderous acts, thereby starving them of the funds that they use to 
strike at innocent victims.
  In 1983, the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, was 
bombed by the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, killing 241 
servicemen and wounding 100 others. In 2003, the U.S. District Court in 
Washington, DC, found the Republic of Iran, which directly supports 
Hezbollah, guilty of masterminding that bombing. The victims and their 
families have the right to sue their tormentors and have judgments 
against Iran, yet the judgments are not being enforced.
  In 1996, the President signed into law legislation that I wrote to 
amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to give private American 
citizens the right to hold U.S. Department of State-designated state 
sponsors of terrorism liable in U.S. courts. This legislation, also 
known as the Flatow amendment, needs to be clarified and updated. The 
bill I am introducing today will bring clarity to this law on behalf of 
victims of terrorism and reaffirm their right to sue and collect 
damages from state sponsors of terrorism.
  There are several reasons why the law needs to be improved. First, 
the courts decided in 2004 in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of 
Iran that, contrary to the intent of the Flatow amendment, there would 
be no Federal private right of action against foreign governments. The 
ruling stated that there could only be legal action against individual 
officials and employees of that government. Second, current law permits 
judgment holders to only seize assets over which a terrorist state has 
day-to-day managerial control, thereby allowing terrorist states to 
hide their assets from the victims who have successful judgments 
against them. Third, state sponsors of terrorism, such as Libya, which 
is still responsible for terrorist acts it committed in the past, have 
consistently abused the appeals process to delay litigation 
proceedings.
  My new legislation will address these issues and improve the ability 
of victims to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable. First, it 
will update the Flatow amendment to improve its enforcement by 
reaffirming the right of private citizens to sue state sponsors of 
terrorism. Second, it will allow for the seizure of hidden commercial 
assets belonging to the terrorist state so that the victims of 
terrorism can be justly compensated. Third, it will limit the number of 
appeals that the terrorist state can pursue in U.S. courts. In 
addition, my legislation will provide foreign nationals working for the 
U.S. Government, if they are victims of a terrorist attack during their 
official duties, to be covered by these same provisions.
  While nothing can bring back innocent lives lost to terrorism, the 
state sponsors of these horrific acts must be made to pay for their 
crimes. We are united in our belief that state-sponsored terrorism is 
wrong and that the perpetrators of terrorism must be brought to 
justice. This legislation will also strengthen our national security by 
combating the desire and ability of foreign nations to both finance and 
support terrorism. Most importantly, it will empower those innocent 
victims who have suffered from terrorism to seek justice through the 
rule of American law.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support justice 
for victims of state sponsored terrorism by supporting this important 
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1944

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Justice for Victims of State 
     Sponsored Terrorism Act''.

[[Page 22666]]



     SEC. 2. TERRORISM EXCEPTION TO IMMUNITY.

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) No immunity.--A foreign state shall not be immune 
     from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of 
     the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter 
     in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for 
     personal injury or death that was caused by an act of 
     torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage 
     taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as 
     defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such 
     act or provision of material support is engaged in by an 
     official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while 
     acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or 
     agency.
       ``(2) Claim heard.--The court shall hear a claim under this 
     section if--
       ``(A) the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor 
     of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export Administration 
     Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405 (j)) or section 620A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time 
     the act occurred, unless later designated as a result of such 
     act;
       ``(B) the claimant or the victim was--
       ``(i) a national of the United States (as that term is 
     defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
       ``(ii) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     (as that term is defined in section 976 of title 10); or
       ``(iii) otherwise an employee of the government of the 
     United States or one of its contractors acting within the 
     scope of their employment when the act upon which the claim 
     is based occurred; or
       ``(C) where the act occurred in the foreign state against 
     which the claim has been brought, the claimant has afforded 
     the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the 
     claim in accordance with the accepted international rules of 
     arbitration.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the terms `torture' and `extrajudicial killing' have 
     the meaning given those terms in section 3 of the Torture 
     Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);
       ``(2) the term `hostage taking' has the meaning given that 
     term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the 
     Taking of Hostages; and
       ``(3) the term `aircraft sabotage' has the meaning given 
     that term in Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression 
     of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation.
       ``(c) Time Limit.--An action may be brought under this 
     section if the action is commenced not later than the latter 
     of--
       ``(1) 10 years after April 24, 1996; or
       ``(2) 10 years from the date on which the cause of action 
     arose.
       ``(d) Private Right of Action.--A private cause of action 
     may be brought against a foreign state designated under 
     section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. 2405(j)), and any official, employee, or agent of said 
     foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her 
     office, employment, or agency which shall be liable to a 
     national of the United States (as that term is defined in 
     section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)), a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States (as that term is defined in section 976 of 
     title 10), or an employee of the government of the United 
     States or one of its contractors acting within the scope of 
     their employment or the legal representative of such a person 
     for personal injury or death caused by acts of that foreign 
     state or its official, employee, or agent for which the 
     courts of the United States may maintain jurisdiction under 
     this section for money damages which may include economic 
     damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages 
     if the acts were among those described in this section. A 
     foreign state shall be vicariously liable for the actions of 
     its officials, employees, or agents.
       ``(e) Additional Damages.--After an action has been brought 
     under subsection (d), actions may also be brought for 
     reasonably foreseeable property loss, whether insured or 
     uninsured, third party liability, and life and property 
     insurance policy loss claims.
       ``(f) Special Masters.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Courts of the United States may from 
     time to time appoint special masters to hear damage claims 
     brought under this section.
       ``(2) Transfer of funds.--The Attorney General shall 
     transfer, from funds available for the program under sections 
     1404C of the Victims Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c) to 
     the Administrator of the United States District Court in 
     which any case is pending which has been brought pursuant to 
     section 1605(a)(7) such funds as may be required to carry out 
     the Orders of that United States District Court appointing 
     Special Masters in any case under this section. Any amount 
     paid in compensation to any such Special Master shall 
     constitute an item of court costs.
       ``(g) Appeal.--In an action brought under this section, 
     appeals from orders not conclusively ending the litigation 
     may only be taken pursuant to section 1292(b) of this title.
       ``(h) Property Disposition.--
       ``(1) In general.--In every action filed in a United States 
     district court in which jurisdiction is alleged under this 
     section, the filing of a notice of pending action pursuant to 
     this section, to which is attached a copy of the complaint 
     filed in the action, shall have the effect of establishing a 
     lien of lis pendens upon any real property or tangible 
     personal property located within that judicial district that 
     is titled in the name of any defendant, or titled in the name 
     of any entity controlled by any such defendant if such notice 
     contains a statement listing those controlled entities.
       ``(2) Notice.--A notice of pending action pursuant to this 
     section shall be filed by the clerk of the district court in 
     the same manner as any pending action and shall be indexed by 
     listing as defendants all named defendants and all entities 
     listed as controlled by any defendant.
       ``(3) Enforceability.--Liens established by reason of this 
     subsection shall be enforceable as provided in chapter 111 of 
     this title.''.
       (b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis 
     for chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item for section 1605 the following:

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

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

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

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO PENDING CASES.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to any claim arising under section 1605A or 1605(g) of 
     title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act.
       (b) Prior Actions.--Any judgment or action brought under 
     section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, or 
     section 101(c) of Public Law 104-208 after the effective date 
     of such provisions relying on either of these provisions as 
     creating a cause of action, which has been adversely affected 
     on the grounds that either or both of these provisions fail 
     to create a cause of action opposable against the state, and 
     which is still before the courts in any form, including 
     appeal or motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), 
     shall, on motion made to the Federal District Court where the 
     judgment or action was initially entered, be given effect as 
     if it had originally been filed pursuant to section 1605A(d) 
     of title 28, United States Code. The defenses of res 
     judicata, collateral estoppel and limitation period are 
     waived in any re-filed action described in this paragraph and 
     based on the such claim. Any such motion or re-filing must be 
     made not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Brown)
  S. 1945. A bill to provide a Federal income tax credit for Patriot 
employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when companies make headlines today it is

[[Page 22667]]

often for all the wrong reasons: fraud, tax avoidance, profiteering, 
etc. Yet many of the companies that are currently providing jobs across 
America are conscientious corporate citizens that strive to treat their 
workers fairly even as they seek to create good products that consumers 
want and to maximize profits for their shareholders. I believe that we 
should reward such companies for providing good jobs to American 
workers, and create incentives that encourage more companies to do 
likewise. The Patriot Employers bill does just that.
  This legislation, which I am introducing today along with Senators 
Obama and Brown, would provide a tax credit to reward the companies 
that treat American workers best. Companies that provide American jobs, 
pay decent wages; provide good benefits, and support their employees 
when they are called to active duty should enjoy more favorable tax 
treatment than companies that are unwilling to make the same commitment 
to American workers. The Patriot Employers tax credit would put the tax 
code on the side of those deserving companies by acknowledging their 
commitments.
  The Patriot Employers legislation would provide a tax credit equal to 
1 percent of taxable income to employers that meet the following 
criteria:
  First, invest in American jobs, by maintaining or increasing the 
number of full-time workers in America relative to the number of full-
time workers outside of America, by maintaining their corporate 
headquarters in America if the company has ever been headquartered in 
America, and by maintaining neutrality in union organizing drives.
  Second, pay decent wages, by paying each worker an hourly wage that 
would ensure that a full-time worker would earn enough to keep a family 
of three out of poverty, at least $7.80 per hour.
  Third, prepare workers for retirement, either by providing a defined 
benefit plan or by providing a defined contribution plan that fully 
matches at least 5 percent of worker contributions for every employee.
  Fourth, provide health insurance, by paying at least 60 percent of 
each worker's health care premiums.
  Fifth, support our troops, by paying the difference between the 
regular salary and the military salary of all National Guard and 
Reserve employees who are called for active duty, and also by 
continuing their health insurance coverage.
  In recognition of the different business circumstances that small 
employers face, companies with fewer than 50 employees could achieve 
Patriot Employer status by fulfilling a smaller number of these 
criteria.
  There is more to the story of corporate American than the widely-
publicized wrong-doing. Patriot Employers should be publicly recognized 
for doing right by their workers even while they do well for their 
customers and shareholders. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Obama, 
Senator Brown, and me in supporting this effort. Our best companies, 
and our American workers, deserve nothing less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1945

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Patriot Employers Act''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCED TAXES FOR PATRIOT EMPLOYERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) a defined benefit plan which for any plan year 
     requires the employer to make contributions on behalf of each 
     employee who is not a highly compensated employee in an 
     amount which will provide an accrued benefit under the plan 
     for the plan year which is not less than 5 percent of the 
     employee's compensation.''.
       (b) Allowance as General Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code or 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (30), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (31) and inserting ``, plus'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(32) the Patriot employer credit determined under section 
     45O.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 1946. A bill to help Federal prosecutors and investigators combat 
public corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to 
introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, a 
bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal 
law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack 
public corruption nationwide. This is the time to restore the faith of 
the American people in their Government. Congress took an important 
step in that direction today in passing long-awaited ethics and 
lobbying reforms that will tighten restrictions on those of us who hold 
public office, and those who seek to lobby us on behalf of private 
industry. But rooting out the kinds of rampant public corruption we 
have seen in recent years requires us to go further

[[Page 22668]]

and to give prosecutors the tools they need to effectively investigate 
and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.
  The most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our 
own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on 
getting around the rules and banking that they will not get caught. 
These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. 
Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be 
found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not 
tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for Federal 
prosecutors to combat it. This b1ll will do exactly that.
  The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today, like a bill that I 
introduced in the Senate in January, will provide investigators and 
prosecutors more time and resources to pursue public corruption cases. 
But it goes a step further by amending several key statutes to broaden 
their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public 
officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution 
based on existing legal ambiguities.
  The bill will help improve the prosecution of public corruption 
offenses in three fundamental ways. First, the bill would give 
investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to uncover, 
charge, and prove three of the most serious and corrosive public 
corruption offenses. Specifically, it would extend the statute of 
limitations from 5 years to 6 years for prosecutions involving bribery, 
deprivation of honest services by a public official, and extortion by a 
public official. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult 
and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often 
require the use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as 
review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which 
take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson and passport 
fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. 
Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a 
more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step 
to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.
  The bill would also provide significant additional funding for public 
corruption enforcement. Since 9/11, FBI resources have been shifted 
away from the pursuit of public corruption cases to counterterrorism. 
FBI Director Mueller has recently indicated that public corruption is 
now a top criminal investigative priority; but a September 2005 report 
by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 
to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters 
handled by the FBI. This must be reversed; our bill will give Offices 
of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the 
Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice additional 
resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and 
prosecutors. These offices will finally be able to have the manpower 
they need to track down and prosecute these difficult but crucially 
important cases.
  Second, the bill contains a series of legislative fixes designed to 
improve the clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing Federal 
corruption statutes, such as the law criminalizing the acceptance of 
bribes and gratuities, and the law that govern mail and wire fraud. The 
bribery-gratuities fix resolves ambiguity in the law by making clear 
that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what 
is permitted by existing regulations, that is given to them because of 
their official position. Similarly, the bill appropriately expands the 
definition of what it means for a public official to perform an 
``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute to include any 
actions that fall within the duties of that official's public office. 
The bill also adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the 
Federal wiretap and the racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional 
amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-
funded state programs, and expands venue for perjury and obstruction of 
justice prosecutions.
  Third, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for theft of 
Government property and Federal bribery to reflect the serious and 
corrosive nature of these crimes, and to harmonize these statutory 
maximums with others for which Congress has already raised penalties. 
Increasing penalties in appropriate cases sends a message to would-be 
criminals and to the public that there will be severe consequences for 
breaching the public trust.
  If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct 
that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption 
cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators 
and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. 
Passing the ethics and lobbying reform bill is a step in the right 
direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law 
to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who 
undermine the public trust to justice. I strongly urge Congress to do 
more to restore the public's faith in their Government.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1946

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Corruption 
     Prosecution Improvements Act''.

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

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

     ``Sec. 3299A. Corruption offenses

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 4. VENUE FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES.

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

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

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

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

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

       Section 666(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by--
       (A) striking ``anything of value'' and inserting ``any 
     thing or things of value''; and

[[Page 22669]]

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

     SEC. 6. PENALTY FOR SECTION 641 VIOLATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 10. ADDITIONAL RICO PREDICATES.

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

     SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL WIRETAP PREDICATES.

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

     SEC. 12. CLARIFICATION OF CRIME OF ILLEGAL GRATUITIES.

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

     SEC. 13. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL ACT.

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

     SEC. 14. CLARIFICATION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT BRIBERY.

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 1624. Venue

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

``1624. Venue.''.

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

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

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

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

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this important 
legislation with Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee. This bill is yet another example of the great 
things that can come from bipartisan cooperation.
  Public corruption is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a 
Washington, DC problem. It is a problem in statehouses and city halls 
across this country. Our citizens deserve to be governed by the rule of 
law, not the rule of man. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, 
a few rotten apples have a tendency to spoil the bunch.
  The legislation we introduce today, the Public Corruption Prosecution 
Improvements Act, will strengthen the enforcement of U.S. Federal laws

[[Page 22670]]

aimed at combating betrayals of public dollars and public trust. Our 
bill does this both by making substantive changes to public corruption 
laws and by giving prosecutors new tools to use in their battle against 
corrupt officials.
  The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act increases the 
maximum punishments on several offenses, including theft and 
embezzlement of Federal funds, bribery, and a number of corrupt 
campaign contribution practices. For example, it cracks down on theft 
or bribery related to entities that receive Federal funds, by 
increasing the maximum sentence for a conviction from 10 to 15 year and 
lowering the threshold that prosecutors must prove, from $5,000 to 
$1,000. It clarifies the law in response to several court decisions 
narrowly interpreting the public corruption statutes. For example, the 
bill broadens the definitions of ``illegal gratuities'' and ``official 
acts,'' clarified that an entire ``course of conduct'' can be the 
result of bribery, and clarified that intangible property interests 
such as licenses can now trigger the mail and wire fraud provisions.
  Federal investigators who seek to root out corrupt officials will 
benefit from new tools provided in this legislation. The bill would 
extend the statute of limitations on certain serious public corruption 
offenses, giving prosecutors more time to investigate and build a case. 
It expands the criminal venue provisions, allowing prosecutors to bring 
the case against corrupt officials in any district where any part of 
the corruption occurred. The bill similarly expands the venue for 
perjury and obstruction of justice.
  Finally, the legislation gives Federal law enforcement what they need 
most to prosecute public corruption: more resources. Funding of $25 
million for each of the fiscal years 2008-2011 will help enhance the 
ability of the Department of Justice and the Offices of Inspectors 
General to effectively combat fraud and public corruption.
  Importantly, these improvements to current law come with significant 
input from the career professionals in the Department of Justice.
  But this legislation by itself is only a start if we want to clean up 
Washington, DC. Two additional reforms, in particular, are necessary: 
the OPEN Government Act, and earmark reform. The operations of 
Government should be as transparent as possible. Quite simply, refusing 
to let the public have full access to Government records is a betrayal 
of public trust. This Senate must live up to its duty to provide 
transparent government and pass the crucial FOIA reforms contained in 
the OPEN Government Act.
  Similarly, Congress too often permits its members to walk ethical 
tight- ropes through questionable earmarking practices. The public sees 
these for what they too often are: handouts of taxpayer money to 
special interests. I think it is of the utmost importance that we 
increase transparency in the earmarking process, exposing the process 
to the light of the day.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Public Corruption Prosecution 
Improvements Act, as well as these other important reforms. I look 
forward to debating these issues in Committee and here on the Senate 
floor. And I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this and other 
legislation we have crafted together.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1947. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
improve the quality improvement organization (QIO) program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
colleague Senator Baucus to introduce the Continuing the Advancement of 
Quality Improvement Act.
  The purpose of this legislation is to reform Medicare's troubled 
Quality Improvement Organization, QIO, program. QIOs and their 
predecessor organizations have long been responsible for ensuring that 
the care Medicare beneficiaries receive is medically necessary, meets 
recognized standards and is provided in appropriate settings. They are 
currently tasked with a wide variety of important roles ranging from 
investigating beneficiary complaints of poor quality care to giving 
technical assistance to Medicare providers for improving health care 
quality.
  I have been an advocate of reforming the QIO program for quite some 
time. About 2 years ago, I initiated an investigation into a number of 
the QIOs. Those investigations revealed a program that is in desperate 
need of reform. This program was running with little or no oversight, 
and it was expending more than $1 billion every 3 years with little 
measurable results. In other words, I found trouble. Let me elaborate 
on a few disturbing things that I discovered. I found that one QIO 
leased residential properties for board members and a CEO. That same 
QIO also used Federal funds to lease automobiles for its top 
executives. I also found other QIOs who had board members and staff 
attend conferences, many at lavish resorts.
  I was not the only one to identify serous concerns with the QIOs. 
Others identified concerns too. Specifically, the Institute of 
Medicine, IOM, the General Accountability Office, GAO, and the 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Office of the Inspector 
Geheral (OIG) all identified numerous concerns about the effectiveness 
of this program. These independent organizations also voiced their 
concerns with the manner in which it is operated and have made 
recommendations for major reform. Their findings clearly show the need 
to hold the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the 
organizations that serve as QIOs accountable for the important tasks 
they must perform.
  The Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act will ensure 
that the QIO program is not only effective in improving the quality of 
care provided to our Medicare beneficiaries, but also that it operates 
in an effective, efficient and accountable manner. Much of this 
legislation is based on the investigations that I conducted and the 
troubling findings that I came across and on the work of the IOM, the 
GAO, and the HHS OIG.
  First, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act 
would focus the mission of the QIO program on quality improvement. QIOs 
currently have many diverse responsibilities. As a result, they served 
conflicting roles of both ``regulator'' and ``technical assistant.'' 
This conflict poses significant barriers to QIOs effectively serving 
either role, and we have come to learn that they really don't perform 
either function particularly well.
  The legislation would also address this conflict by following the 
IOM's recommendation to make the sole purpose of QIOs to be technical 
assistants for quality improvement and performance measurement. The HHS 
Secretary would be required to transfer all other QIO: responsibilities 
to other entities called Medicare Provider Review Organizations, MPROs, 
in a manner that will support the needs of beneficiaries and be 
accountable to them.
  Second, the legislation would improve the beneficiary complaint 
review process that I think is in desperate need of reform. You may 
recall that in 2006 we read about the plight of Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff 
went to a QIO and filed a complaint about the care provided to his 
wife, who died. The QIO in that case was unresponsive to Mr. Schiff. He 
was forced to take legal action to learn what the QIO found out about 
his wife's death. He should not have had to do that. After all, he was 
the one who filed the complaint with the QIO in the first place because 
he thought that someone did something wrong that lead to his wife's 
death. It was at that juncture that I learned that the beneficiary 
complaint review process was too opaque and ineffective. More 
importantly, beneficiaries were not being properly served. In fact, I 
came to learn that complainants often do not receive the findings of 
the investigation conducted by the QIO. Now I ask; what sense does that 
make?
  The Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act would 
require MPROs to report the investigational findings to the complainant 
and refer the provider to a QIO for technical assistance and/or the 
appropriate

[[Page 22671]]

regulatory body for sanctions. In other words, this part of the bill 
would bring transparency to a process now shrouded in a cloud of 
silence.
  Third, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act 
would ensure that limited resources go to providers that need them the 
most. The GAO recently found that QIOs prioritized their assistance to 
providers who would be easiest to help rather than the providers who 
were most in need of help. In other words the QIOs decided it was 
easier to take a B plus student and make them into an A student rather 
than putting their resources into the D student to bring them up to 
par. I guess that way they thought that they would look better and more 
successful. But if you ask me; that is not the best way to spend 
limited taxpayer resources. Now, this bill will insure that if demand 
for technical assistance exceeds available resources, the QIOs would 
give priority to providers that are in rural or underserved areas, in 
financial need, have low performance measures or have a significant 
number of beneficiary complaints. In other words the help is going to 
go to those who need it most.
  Fourth, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act 
would make QIO data more available to CMS and providers for quality 
improvement and patient safety purposes. Amazingly enough, QIOs are 
currently restricted from sharing such data despite the obvious value 
of this data for improving health care quality. This legislation would 
permit the sharing of QIO data with providers for quality improvement 
and patient safety purposes and require CMS to make recommendations on 
how to improve the data sharing process.
  Fifth, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act 
would promote competition in the QIO program. This is a giant leap 
forward. These organizations are currently not subject to significant 
competition because of limitations on who can be a QIO and the 
availability of noncompetitive contract renewals. This lack of 
competition has led to a gross lack of accountability and stagnation in 
the QIO program. This legislation would promote competition by allowing 
other types of organizations to serve as QIOs and eliminate 
noncompetitive renewals.
  Sixth, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act 
would enhance governance at the QIOs. During the course of my 
investigations I identified repeated failures in governance. I exposed 
board members who were more interested in helping themselves than 
helping others.
  This bill will also address board member conflicts of interest. My 
investigations identified numerous incidents of questionable QIO 
governance practices and board member conflicts of interest. Since the 
QIO program receives over $400 million in taxpayer funding every year, 
it is reasonable for us to expect not only that QIOs are governed in an 
ethical manner free of conflicts of interest, but also that CMS 
appropriately oversees the program. This legislation would require QIOs 
to comply with board governance requirements and would require CMS to 
establish procedures to address conflicts of interest and follow those 
procedures.
  Finally, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act 
would increase much needed accountability in the QIO program. The I0M, 
the GAO and the HHS OIG have all questioned the effectiveness of the 
QIO program. This legislation would require the Secretary to perform 
interim and final evaluations of program effectiveness not only at the 
individual QIO level, but at the overall QIO program level as a whole. 
Also, high performing QIOs would receive financial rewards while low 
performing QIOs would receive financial penalties. Finally, the 
Secretary would be required to submit a more detailed annual report 
showing performance results of QIOs and MPROs and details on how 
taxpayer dollars are spent.
  We have been placing more emphasis on the quality of care that our 
Medicare beneficiaries receive from providers. You see this as we 
require more transparency in the Medicare program with the public 
reporting of provider quality measures. You also see this as we 
transform Medicare from being a passive payer of services of any 
quality to a value-based purchaser. These are important reforms that 
will help improve the quality of care provided in the Medicare program 
and work toward ensuring that limited resources are used more 
efficiently and wisely.
  As we move toward a payment system based on quality, the reforms in 
this bill will position the QIO program to support that transformation 
in Medicare to a quality-based purchaser by making the tools and 
assistance available to help Medicare providers improve the quality of 
the care they provide. The Continuing the Advancement of Quality 
Improvement Act would ensure the QIO program's ability to provide this 
assistance in an effective, efficient and accountable manner and 
correct the problems currently plaguing the program.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator 
Grassley in introducing the Continuing the Advancement of Quality 
Improvement Act of 2007.
  This bill represents another step in our commitment to improving the 
quality of care provided for Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans.
  The Medicare program funds Quality Improvement Organizations, known 
as QIOs, in part to work with health care providers to help them 
improve the quality of care they provide.
  QIOs have played an evolving role in Medicare. Recently, the QIO 
program has received a great deal of attention. Not only did Senator 
Grassley and I have the Senate Finance Committee look into aspects of 
QIO operations, but the Institute of Medicine, the Government 
Accountability Office, and the Health and Human Services' Inspector 
General have all opined about QIOs as well. It seems there is a 
consensus that the QIO program could be doing more to help improve the 
quality of care.
  That is not to say that QIOs have not been doing good work and 
providing valuable services up until now. Quite the opposite. However, 
over the course of time, QIOs have been tasked with a number of 
responsibilities and the program's mission has become blurred.
  What Senator Grassley and I found, as well as the IOM, the GAO, and 
the HHS, OIG, is that the QIO program needs a sharper focus. Its 
mission to improve quality must be clear and unambiguous. Therefore, 
the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement, or CAQI, Act 
would focus QIOs on providing technical assistance for quality 
improvement and performance measurement.
  The bill would separate the beneficiary complaint process from QIOs 
and give this responsibility to Medicare Provider Review Organizations, 
which will be required to report to the complainant and refer the 
provider to a QIO for technical assistance and/or the appropriate 
regulatory body for sanctions. This will make the complaint review 
process stronger.
  The CAQI Act would ensure that QIOs devote their attention to the 
health care providers that need help the most. It would also permit 
sharing QIO data with providers for quality improvement and patient 
safety purposes.
  The Finance Committee investigation of the QIO program led Senator 
Grassley and I to include certain provisions we believe will enhance 
the integrity of the program. So, the CAQI Act would promote 
competition by allowing other types of organizations to serve as QIOs 
and eliminating noncompetitive renewals.
  To ensure ``corporate'' integrity, the CAQI Act would establish 
requirements for governance and boards of directors at the QIOs, as 
well as requiring CMS to establish ways to avoid conflicts of interest.
  The CAQI Act aims to ensure greater accountability for individual 
QIOs, and the QIO program as a whole. It would require the Secretary to 
perform evaluations of the effectiveness of each QIO and the whole 
program. QIOs would be evaluated on consistent measures that are based 
on nationwide priorities for quality improvement. The Secretary would 
be required to report to Congress annually on QIO performance, 
including how program funds were spent.
  The QIO program is an asset to the Medicare program and the health 
care

[[Page 22672]]

system in general. We have an opportunity to improve its effectiveness. 
We can make it a more useful tool as we continue advancing toward 
quality improvement. We have a duty to make the Medicare program as 
strong and robust as it can be. The Continuing the Advancement of 
Quality Improvement Act presents an opportunity to do just that. 
Senator Grassley and I urge our Colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S. 1949. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
loans to certain organizations in certain States to address habitats 
and ecosystems and to address and prevent invasive species; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1949

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``100th Meridian Invasive 
     Species State Revolving Loan Fund''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (C) Sense of congress regarding multistate compacts.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that--
       (i) Governors of States should enter into multistate 
     compacts in coordination with qualified organizations to 
     prevent, address, and remediate against the spread of 
     animals, plants, or pathogens, or aquatic, wetland, or 
     terrestrial invasive species;
       (ii) the Secretary should give special consideration to 
     multistate compacts described in clause (i) in reviewing loan 
     solicitations and applications of the States and qualified 
     organizations that are parties to the compacts; and
       (iii) if a multistate compact is entered into under clause 
     (i), the Governors of all States that are parties to the 
     compact should combine to repay to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury a total combined amount equal to not less than 25 
     percent of the amount of the loan provided under this Act 
     (including interest at a rate less than or equal to the 
     market interest rate).
       (D) Petitions.--

[[Page 22673]]

       (i) Action by governor.--On approval of an application of a 
     qualified organization under subparagraph (B)(ii), not less 
     frequently than once every 90 days, the Governor of an 
     eligible State shall submit to the Secretary, on behalf of 
     the qualified organization, petitions, together with copies 
     of the applications, to receive a loan under this paragraph.
       (ii) Approval.--The Secretary, at the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary, may approve a petition submitted under clause 
     (i) as soon as practicable after the date of submission of 
     the petition.
       (iii) Action on approval.--

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

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

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

       (ii) Repayment.--Subject to clause (iv), not later than 10 
     years after the date on which a qualified organization 
     receives a loan under paragraph (1), the qualified 
     organization or the eligible State in which the qualified 
     organization is located shall repay to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury an amount equal to not less than 5 percent of the 
     amount of the loan (including interest at a rate less than or 
     equal to the market interest rate).
       (iii) Repayment by state.--Subject to clause (iv), not 
     later than 10 years after the date on which the qualified 
     organization receives a loan under paragraph (1), the State 
     in which the project is carried out shall repay to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury an amount equal to not less than 25 
     percent of the amount of the loan (including interest at a 
     rate less than or equal to the market interest rate).
       (iv) Waiver.--Not more frequently than once every 5 years, 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, may waive the requirements under clauses (i) 
     through (iii) with respect to 1 qualified organization 
     (including the State in which the project of the qualified 
     organization is carried out, with respect to the requirement 
     under clause (iii)).
       (B) Long-term management and remediation strategies.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that no loan provided under paragraph 
     (1) is used to carry out a long-term management or 
     remediation strategy, unless the Governor or applicable 
     qualified organization demonstrates either or both a reliable 
     funding stream and in-kind contributions to carry out the 
     strategy over the duration of the project.
       (3) Renewal.--After reviewing the reports under subsection 
     (g), if the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of 
     each affected State, determines that a project is making 
     satisfactory progress, the Secretary may renew the loan 
     provided under this subsection for a period of not more than 
     3 additional fiscal years.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) Reports to secretary.--For each year during which a 
     qualified organization receives a loan under subsection (f), 
     the qualified organization, in conjunction with the Governor 
     of the eligible State in which the qualified organization is 
     primarily located, shall submit to the Secretary a report 
     describing each project (including the results of the 
     project) carried out by the qualified organization using the 
     loan during that year.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 2008, 
     and annually thereafter through September 30, 2012, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report describing the total loan 
     amount requested by each eligible State during the preceding 
     fiscal year and the total amount of the loans provided under 
     subsection (f)(1) to each eligible State during that fiscal 
     year, and an evaluation on effectiveness of the Fund and the 
     potential to expand the Fund to other regions, to--
       (A) the Committees on Appropriations, Energy and Natural 
     Resources, and Environment and Public Works of the Senate; 
     and
       (B) the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Report by borrower.--
       (A) In general.--Each qualified organization that receives 
     a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the Secretary 
     a report describing the use of the loan and the success 
     achieved by the qualified organization--
       (i) not less frequently than once each year until the date 
     of expiration of the loan; or
       (ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 1 year 
     after the date on which the loan is provided, at least once 
     during the term of the loan.
       (B) Interim update.--In addition to the reports required 
     under subparagraph (A), each qualified organization that 
     receives a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the 
     Secretary, electronically or in writing, a report describing 
     the use of the loan and the success achieved by the qualified 
     organization, expressed in chronological order with respect 
     to the date on which each project was initiated--
       (i) not less frequently than once every 180 days until the 
     date of expiration of the loan; or
       (ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 180 days 
     after the date on which the loan is provided, on the date on 
     which the term of the loan is 50 percent completed.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Fund--
       (1) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (2) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       (3) $82,500,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       (4) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       (5) $87,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1953. A bill to amend the Agricultural Manufacturing Act of 1946 
to require labeling of raw agricultural forms of ginseng, including the 
country of harvest, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am 
introducing with the Senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, which 
would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is 
labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The Ginseng 
Harvest Labeling Act of 2007 is similar to bills that I introduced in 
previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from 
ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.
  I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and 
the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues 
understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American 
cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and 
medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely 
touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in 
fighting fatigue or stress.
  In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a 
dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of 
Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin 
produces over 90 percent of the ginseng grown in the U.S., with the 
vast majority of that ginseng grown in just one Wisconsin county, 
Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other states such 
as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, 
and West Virginia.
  For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng 
commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest 
quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 
2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which 
was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality 
ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at 
home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future 
ahead.
  Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious 
problem, smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is 
considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go 
to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as 
``Wisconsin-grown.''
  Here is how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to 
China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is 
itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often 
use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian or Canadian-
grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality 
ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers 
who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product.
  There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng

[[Page 22674]]

they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of 
testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for 
pesticides that are banned in the U.S. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin 
has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of 
the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and 
quintozine, PCNB, have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng 
sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent 
pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which 
ginseng is really grown in the U.S.
  To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of 
Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the 
ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is 
so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become 
widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of 
knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase--
where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains 
dangerous pesticides.
  My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007, proposes 
some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the 
ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw 
agricultural commodity, be clearly labeled with the country of harvest 
at the point of importation or when it is sold at wholesale or retail. 
``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have 
ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants 
were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with 
chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow 
buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing 
foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country 
of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers 
to make an informed decision.
  I have also made sure that these straight-forward labeling provisions 
are reasonable for the legitimate importers, wholesalers and retailers 
of ginseng. My bill only covers ginseng as a raw root, the form in 
which the majority of the high quality Wisconsin ginseng is sold. I 
have also clarified the legislation to make it clear that retailers are 
only responsible for transmitting the country of harvest label that 
they received from the importer or wholesaler to the consumer. So if 
the retailer never received the country of harvest label, it is only 
the wholesaler or importer that is liable. Moreover, I added a 
provision that requires the USDA to conduct outreach to the 
wholesalers, importers, retailers, trade associations and other 
interested parties during the 180 days provided before the labeling 
requirement takes effect.
  Besides the support from the ginseng growers of the Ginseng Board of 
Wisconsin, I am glad to have the support of the American Herbal 
Products Association and the United Natural Products Alliance. The 
support of both the growers of ginseng and these trade associations 
focused on herbal and natural products are further testament to the 
broad support for the legislation Senator Kohl and I introduce today.
  These commonsense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they 
deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that 
they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers seek out a 
high-quality ginseng root--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng, they are 
getting the real thing, not a knock-off.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1953

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

                         ``Subtitle E--Ginseng

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

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

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on 
     the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Salazar, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1954. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve access to pharmacies under part D; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmacy Access 
Improvement Act of 2007. This is an updated version of a bill I 
introduced last year, and I am proud to bring it back.
  I am excited that this year's bill is bipartisan. I am happy that 
Senator Grassley has joined me in introducing this bill. Given all of 
our work together on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I am glad 
he is a cosponsor. I also am pleased to have our Senate colleagues join 
us on this important piece of legislation.
  The Medicare prescription drug benefit got off to a bumpy start last 
year. A lot of the problems have been fixed, and the benefit is 
providing millions of seniors with access to affordable prescription 
drugs. Unfortunately, a number of the problems facing pharmacists 
remain. We need to help them.
  The Medicare drug benefit brought about big changes to the pharmacy 
business. Dual eligible beneficiaries switched from Medicaid to 
Medicare drug coverage. Many more seniors have drug coverage. Dozens of 
new private drug plans are available.
  I have heard from pharmacists in Montana who are struggling. They are 
trying to help their patients. But they face great difficulty. The 
success of the Medicare drug benefit depends on the pharmacists who 
deliver the drugs. So we have to help them. We must act now, before 
pharmacists find that they are no longer able to provide drugs to 
Medicare beneficiaries, or to provide drugs at all.
  The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would do several things to help

[[Page 22675]]

pharmacies. First, it would strengthen the access standards that drug 
plans have to meet. It is important that the drug plans contract with 
broad and far-reaching networks of pharmacies. This bill would ensure 
that the pharmacies that drug plans count in their networks provide 
real access to Medicare beneficiaries.
  It would also help safety net pharmacies to join drug plan networks. 
These pharmacies serve the most vulnerable patients and should be able 
to continue to do so. Drug plans should not be allowed to exclude 
safety net pharmacies. Excluding them does a huge disservice to needy 
beneficiaries. This bill would rectify the problems that safety net 
pharmacies have encountered in participating in the Medicare drug 
benefit.
  The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would speed up reimbursement to 
pharmacies. The delays in receiving payment from drug plans have forced 
pharmacies to seek additional credit, dip into their savings, or worse, 
as they try to continue operations. This bill would require drug plans 
to pay promptly. Most claims would be reimbursed within 2 weeks. And 
the bill would impose a monetary penalty on plans that pay late.
  One of the most common complaints from beneficiaries has been how 
confusing the practice of co-branding is. Co-branding is when a drug 
plan partners with a pharmacy chain and then includes the pharmacy's 
logo or name on its marketing materials and identification cards. This 
is confusing, because it sends the message that drugs are available 
only from that pharmacy. That is not true. To help end this confusion, 
the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would prohibit drug plans from 
placing pharmacy logos or trademarks on their identification cards and 
restrict other forms of co-branding.
  This bill would also require that plans provide pharmacists with more 
accurate and updated information about reimbursement rates. Currently, 
some plans do not divulge to pharmacists how much a particular 
prescription will be reimbursed prior to dispensing. This bill would 
require disclosure before a pharmacist dispenses. It would require 
regular updating and disclosure of pricing standards.
  The problems that pharmacists are facing are real. And they are not 
going away. We must act on the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act before 
it is too late for many pharmacists and the beneficiaries whom they 
serve. We have a duty to make the Medicare drug benefit as strong and 
robust as it can be. And the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act presents 
an opportunity for us to do just that. My cosponsors and I urge our 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
colleague Senator Baucus, as well as Senators Lincoln, Roberts, Conrad, 
Enzi, Schumer, Cochran, Salazar, Smith, Bingaman, and Snowe, to 
introduce the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act.
  I am pleased with how well the Medicare Part D program is working. It 
has demonstrated how effectively private sector competition can work in 
delivering an entitlement benefit. The program has defied official 
predictions and come in under budget by $113 billion compared to the 
baseline projected in 2006. Premiums, initially estimated at $37 for 
2006, in fact averaged $23; in 2007 they fell to an average of $22. We 
understand that this year's bids are even lower and that premiums are 
expected to fall again next year. The vast majority of Medicare 
beneficiaries have enrolled in the program, and while there were some 
troubling start-up problems initially, beneficiaries are very pleased 
with their plans.
  At the same time, the first years of implementation of the Part D 
program have revealed some areas in which the program can be improved. 
One is related to pharmacy participation in the program. Changes are 
needed to ensure that Part D treats pharmacies as Congress intended and 
to make the program friendlier to pharmacists and independent 
pharmacies.
  As Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln, and my other colleagues and I 
talked to beneficiaries, pharmacists, pharmacy owners and prescription 
drug plans about changes that would make Medicare Part D work better, 
many of our discussions centered around how to make sure that Part D 
works not just for the beneficiaries, the chain drug-stores, and the 
plans, but also for the local, independent pharmacies, the long-term 
care pharmacies, and the safety net pharmacies that many beneficiaries 
rely on. That is exactly what this bill is intended to do.
  My colleagues and I hope with this bill to improve contracting for 
pharmacies, increase CMS's and prescription drug plans' customer 
service, and give beneficiaries better access to pharmacies. Let me 
give you some of the specifics of the bill.
  First, the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would strengthen standards 
for ensuring convenient beneficiary access to pharmacies. During the 
first two years of implementation, CMS has permitted some plans to meet 
the pharmacy access requirements in the law by counting non-preferred 
and out-of-network pharmacies. The plans charge higher cost-sharing at 
these pharmacies to discourage their use and drive utilization to 
preferred pharmacies. Counting non-preferred and out-of-network 
pharmacies to meet the access requirements is clearly not what Congress 
had in mind in establishing the beneficiary access guarantees in the 
law. To correct this problem, this bill would require that plans, with 
certain exceptions, count only ``open'' pharmacies, those that are 
accessible to the general public, in meeting the Medicare pharmacy 
access standard.
  It also would require plans to count only their preferred in-network 
pharmacies, not the non-preferred pharmacies, in determining whether 
they meet the access standard.
  The bill would allow pharmacies to initiate negotiations with plans 
under the ``any willing pharmacy'' provision regardless of whether they 
had already rejected, or failed to act on, previous offers from the 
plan.
  The bill also would help ensure the inclusion of safety-net 
pharmacies in a prescription drug plan's network by preventing plans 
from specifically excluding 340B entities in the terms of their 
contracts. 340B entities include federally qualified health centers, 
migrant health centers, health centers for residents of public housing, 
school health centers, as well as black lung clinics, entities 
receiving grants for early intervention for HIV under the Ryan White 
Act, disproportionate share hospitals, and others. They serve more than 
ten million people.
  Many of these entities operate their own pharmacies, which operate 
under different constraints than other retail pharmacies. They may have 
abbreviated hours or be available only to patients of the 340B entity. 
If 340B entities' pharmacies are not available as in-network pharmacies 
in Part D, these patients may have difficulty getting their 
prescription drugs.
  The Model Safety Net Pharmacy Addendum was developed by the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health Research and Services 
Administration to facilitate 340B entities' participation in Medicare 
Part D. Because it takes the 340B entities' special circumstances into 
account, it has appropriate contract language for Part D plans to use 
when contracting with safety net pharmacies. Under the bill, plans 
would have to apply the Model Safety Net Pharmacy Addendum to their 
contracts if a 340B entity so requests.
  The bill also would require plans to include a contract provision to 
allow these safety net pharmacies to waive cost-sharing if the entity 
so requests. Many safety-net pharmacies waive cost-sharing for their 
patients, but the Part D plan contracts typically prohibit this. Given 
that 340B entities serve low-income and poor populations, we believe 
those entities should be able to waive cost sharing for drugs, and our 
bill would facilitate that.
  We have found that long-term care pharmacies similarly operate under 
conditions different from those of retail pharmacies serving the 
general population. For institutionalized populations, each resident's 
daily drugs must be specially packaged to help ensure that each gets 
the drugs meant for her, not for other residents. Long-term

[[Page 22676]]

care pharmacies specialize in this, but the Part D rules to date do not 
adequately reflect how long-term care pharmacies work with long-term 
care facilities, which affects residents' access to these pharmacies. 
Our bill would require the Secretary to establish rules that include 
pharmacy access standards for long-term care residents.
  Another problem that has arisen in the implementation of Part D 
concerns the ability of beneficiaries to obtain extended supplies of 
their drugs from a local pharmacy. Our bill therefore would ask the 
Secretary to establish standards for access to pharmacies that dispense 
extended supplies of covered drugs.
  We have also heard from our local independent pharmacies that many, 
despite contract terms, face delayed payments from prescription drug 
plans. Given that the pharmacies must pay for their drugs on a more 
abbreviated schedule, these delays have created cash-flow crises for 
some pharmacies and put some at risk of closing. As much as I hate to 
legislate contract terms, I would hate more for the independent 
pharmacies in my State to close and my beneficiaries to be left without 
a pharmacy. In our bill, we would require plans to pay most pharmacies 
within 14 days upon receipt of an electronically submitted clean claim. 
For paper claims, they would have 30 days. If they were late, the 
prescription drug plans would have to pay the pharmacies interest. If a 
pharmacy submitted claims electronically and requested electronic 
payment, the plan would have to pay electronically.
  Because long-term care pharmacies operate under unusual circumstances 
compared with retail pharmacies, our bill would allow pharmacies in 
long-term care facilities, or that contract with long-term care 
facilities, at least 30 days but no more than 90 days to submit their 
claims for reimbursement to the plans.
  Another problem involves how plans use maximum allowable prices as 
the upper limit of what they will pay a retail pharmacy for the cost of 
a drug. What has come to light is that some plans will not disclose to 
the contracting pharmacies exactly what the maximum allowable prices 
are either when the contract is proposed to them or even after they 
sign the contract.
  It seems unconscionable to me that a pharmacy would be expected to 
sign a contract where the price term is hidden and not disclosed. In 
the Medicare program, no other health care providers are subject to 
signing a contract in which they don't know what they will get paid.
  Another abusive practice by some plans occurs when they do not update 
their maximum allowable prices in a timely manner. When a 
pharmaceutical company raises its price for a drug the pharmacy has to 
pay that new higher price right away. But the plan might not update 
what it pays for weeks. That leaves the pharmacy to absorb the 
difference. The plans that do this know exactly what they are doing. 
They know they are making the pharmacies eat the higher cost while they 
delay updating their payment rates. To address these concerns, the bill 
would require plans to disclose to pharmacies their ``maximum allowable 
cost'' pricing, and also to update those prices as they change, through 
an Internet website and a toll-free phone number.
  Similarly, the bill would require plans to update their prescription 
drug pricing standard at least every seven days. The drug pricing 
standard changes frequently, and the price the pharmacy is paid is 
based on that standard, and so it seemed fair to us that the 
prescription drug plans' payments should reflect recent changes.
  Our bill is intended to improve CMS's and prescription drug plans' 
service to pharmacies. It would require the HHS Secretary to establish 
a pharmacists' toll-free hotline. Prescription drug plans would have to 
establish separate pharmacists' and physicians' toll-free hotlines, and 
would have to comply with customer service standards established by the 
Secretary. We hope this will prevent pharmacists being placed on long 
holds when they have customers standing at the counter waiting for 
their drugs.
  We have some questions about pharmacists' average dispensing fees, 
and under the bill the HHS Inspector General would conduct a study of 
dispensing fees, including studying whether the pharmacist is 
dispensing a standard prescription or an extended one; whether the 
pharmacist is in a chain store or an independent pharmacy; whether the 
pharmacy dispenses specialty pharmacy products, or is a long-term care 
pharmacy. The Inspector General's report would be due October 1, 2008.
  I believe that with these changes, the Medicare Part D program will 
work even better for beneficiaries and for the pharmacies that serve 
them. As we refine the Medicare Part D program, we want to build on its 
success even as we hope to make it fairer to all the stakeholders 
involved, the beneficiaries, the pharmacies, the PDP plans, and the 
manufacturers. I believe this bill does just that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Ms. Stabenow): S. 1955. A bill to 
        authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to 
        first responder agencies that have employees in the National 
        Guard or Reserves on active duty; to the Committee on Homeland 
        Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, our Nation's first responders are vital to 
protecting our citizens from everyday crime, and to keeping our 
citizens safe from fire and health-related emergencies. Our first 
responders are also vital in the event of disaster, whether man-made or 
natural.
  But these same men and women that keep us safe and healthy at home 
are often called upon to fight for our country abroad with the National 
Guard and Reserves; or sometimes they are called to active duty within 
the U.S. The demands on the Guard and Reserves have become extremely 
heavy during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  However, the demands on first responders here at home do not decrease 
and local fire, police and ambulance services are forced to manage 
without key employees.
  That is why I am introducing the Reinforce First Responders and 
Emergency Employees Deployed Overseas in the Military, or Reinforce 
FREEDOM Act today. My bill will reinforce local first responder 
agencies whose employees are fighting for our freedom overseas. It 
establishes a grant program through the Department of Homeland Security 
for first responder agencies that have employees deployed with the 
National Guard or Reserves.
  The grants are available to law enforcement and fire departments, as 
well as public and private ambulance services. Agencies are eligible to 
receive up to $15,000 for each 3 month period they are without 
employees serving with the military. Primarily volunteer organizations 
are eligible if they are missing a substantial part of their workforce. 
The funds from these grants can be used to hire replacement employees 
or for overtime salary expenses. The funds can also be used for non-
salary costs that were created by the employees' deployment with the 
Guard or Reserves, or which would alleviate the impact of their 
absence.
  Extra funding perhaps cannot fully make up for the loss of crucial 
employees. But this bill will help ensure that first responder agencies 
can continue to keep the American people safe when their Guardsmen and 
Reservist employees are called to defend the United States of America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. McCain, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1956. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to provide equitable access for foster care and adoption services 
for Indian children in tribal areas, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by commending 
the thousands of case workers, foster families, neighbors and friends 
across the country that work to provide safety, stability, and love for 
the more

[[Page 22677]]

than half a million children in the Nation's foster care system. More 
than a third of foster children in Montana are Native American. Across 
America, most of the Native American children in foster care are under 
the jurisdiction of tribal courts. But Native American tribes that want 
to administer their own child welfare systems are not eligible for 
Title IV-E funds to run their own foster care and adoption programs.
  Today I am proud to introduce with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, 
Smith, Stabenow, McCain, and Cantwell the Tribal Foster Care and 
Adoption Act of 2007. This legislation is a demonstration of the 
commitment on both sides of the aisle to provide tribes with the 
opportunity to care for their own children. Children that need foster 
care and adoption services because of the abuse and neglect that they 
have already suffered. This bill provides tribes with the ability to 
serve their children directly with culturally appropriate care and 
understanding. The legislation also recognizes the good work of states 
and their collaborative efforts with tribes on behalf of tribal 
children.
  This legislation has had a long history in the Senate and I am 
pleased to have been a part of that history since the 107th congress. 
It has been introduced in every Congress since then always with 
bipartisan support. This bill's time has come.
  We have worked very hard to fine tune this legislation in away that 
is fair to states and finally gives Tribes direct access to the child 
welfare system. We want a system set up to protect those that need our 
protection the most not to exclude the most vulnerable members of our 
society from direct participation.
  The child welfare system is languishing because of inadequate 
funding. And the system also suffers from a lack of culturally-
appropriate approaches to help tribal children to find loving, 
permanent homes. I am further committed to working on behalf of our 
child welfare system with Chairman Grassley and with Senator 
Rockefeller who have always been dedicated to child welfare issues. The 
Tribal Foster Care and Adoption Act provides a pivotal opportunity to 
ensure that tribes across our country have the ability to access the 
child welfare system. I see this as a first step in making much needed 
improvements to the country's child welfare system, without significant 
costs or new federal programs.
  We owe the first inhabitants of this great Nation and their children 
a child welfare system that works for them. We must do all we can to 
provide help.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1957. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide 
protection for fashion design; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 
1957, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. As one who has been involved 
in national intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark 
policy development for many years, I can tell you first-hand how 
difficult it can be to legislate in these areas. The Constitution 
expressly tasks Congress with the duty to protect the rights of 
property owners, including intellectual property owners. And we spend a 
good bit of time here legislating in the areas of music, art, movies, 
television, radio, books, and so many other things that exist solely 
because of intellectual property rights.
  However, one area of our economy that has been overlooked and not 
benefited from the legal framework associated with intellectual 
property law is the area of fashion design. And yet fashion design is 
one area where America enjoys a trade surplus and has clear leaders in 
the world market. In fact, much of the world apparel and accessory 
industry takes follows the lead of our world renowned fashion experts. 
However, the protections of their designs are not taken as seriously as 
we take other forms of property rights, thereby, hurting a thriving 
American industry around the world.
  In an effort to bring some balance to the property rights of 
designers, Senators Schumer, Hutchison, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, 
Kohl, Clinton, Snowe, and I are introducing this legislation. The goal 
of S. 1957 is to ensure that those who spend their time and money 
developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and 
enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. And I 
support that goal.
  As I stated earlier, this is a difficult area of law in which to 
legislate and the balancing of the rights of property owners and 
consumers is often difficult. In fact, the U.S. has been changing and 
refining intellectual property laws for over 200 years and in some 
areas we still have not gotten it right.
  It must be recognized that this bill is not perfect and there are 
several legitimate concerns with the way this bill attempts to protect 
designs. I will be working with my colleagues to make improvements to 
this bill as it goes through the Senate process. Some areas of the bill 
that need to be improved are: the standard for liability, the 
definition of designs in the public domain, and the secondary liability 
provisions. However, I am certain we will be able to work through these 
issues and move this bill forward.
  I want to thank my colleague, Senator Schumer, for introducing this 
bill. It takes a strong will, and a strong stomach, to take on the job 
of moving intellectual property-related legislation through Congress. 
I'm sure Senator Schumer is up to the task and I look forward to 
helping him.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 1959. A bill to establish the National Commission on the 
Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violent 
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
  Foreign-based terrorism has weighed heavily in the news and in our 
thoughts for more than a decade. Since the first bombing of the World 
Trade Center in 1993, we have seen foreign-based terrorists attack our 
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, a Navy destroyer in Yemen, the World 
Trade Center again, and the Pentagon. Timely arrests prevented foreign-
based terrorists from carrying out a bombing plot directed at the Los 
Angeles airport and, more recently, attacks targeting U.S.-bound 
flights originating in England.
  This long-standing and still-deadly threat requires continued 
surveillance and aggressive action, and will for years to come. But we 
cannot confine our counter-terrorism efforts to attacks organized in 
and launched from other countries. As demonstrated by the bloody 
bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal office building in 1995 and by 
this year's arrests of suspects in plots directed at JFK International 
Airport and Fort Dix, NJ, domestic radicalization and violent extremism 
are also threats to American lives and American society.
  The most effective border security will not prevent ``home-grown'' 
terrorists from attacking our citizens. We need to better understand 
the triggers for radicalization and violence in order to counter the 
threat of terrorists on American soil.
  For nearly a year now, Senator Lieberman and I have conducted an 
investigation and held a series of hearings in the Senate Homeland 
Security Committee probing different aspects of this domestic danger by 
examining radicalization in prisons, radicalization trends, the 
Internet and violent extremism, lessons from the European experience, 
and the adequacy of government counter-measures.
  The harvest of information and insights from these hearings has 
helped alert us to dangers, guide our oversight activities, and 
formulate ideas for legislative action. The testimony and evidence we 
have seen persuade me that we need to undertake an even more in-depth 
examination of the threats of domestic radicalization and violent 
extremism.

[[Page 22678]]

  The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act 
would provide such an examination. It is a companion measure to the 
bill introduced by Representatives Jane Harman of California and Dave 
Reichert of Washington in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman 
Harman has been extraordinarily perceptive in understanding the threat 
of violent radicalization, and her bill's unanimous approval by the 
House Homeland Security Committee is a tribute to her leadership.
  My bill, like the House measure, includes two key initiatives.
  First, it would create a National Commission on the Prevention of 
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.
  Second, it would establish a university-based Center of Excellence 
for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S.
  The Commission would devote itself to a survey of what we know, and 
what we need to learn, about the social and psychological breeding 
grounds of extremism, the process of radicalization, the factors that 
cause people to turn to violence, the processes of recruitment and 
coordination, and the phenomenon of self-radicalization and ``lone 
wolf'' terrorism.
  To ensure a broad range of input for the commission, members would be 
selected for their qualifications by the President, the majority and 
minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairman and ranking 
member of the Homeland Security Committees of the House and Senate.
  The commission's final report, to be delivered within 18 months of 
its initial meeting, would provide a solid base of information and a 
guide for further research and action against the dangers that we face.
  A ``final report,'' however useful, cannot be the last word in the 
fight against a threat that has been growing for years and may persist 
for decades. That is why the bill takes the important second step of 
establishing a university-based Center of Excellence focused on 
homegrown terrorism, violent radicalization, and ideologically based 
violence.
  The Department of Homeland Security currently has 8 Centers for 
Excellence focusing on various aspects of homeland security, such as 
risk-analysis, food protection, and catastrophic-event preparedness and 
response.
  My bill would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate 
a new center or to expand the mission of an existing center. In either 
case, such a center will provide an institution dedicated to 
researching and understanding violent radicalization and homegrown 
terrorism, and to developing findings that can assist Federal, State, 
local, and tribal governments in dealing with these threats.
  It is vital, that our homeland-security efforts extend to a 
systematic and comprehensive understanding of the radicalization 
process that turns people living in our midst to ideologically based 
violence and terrorism. It is also vital that we create an academically 
based center to sustain high-quality research efforts on this threat to 
augment federal initiatives and to expand and supplement Government 
thinking.
  This bill, which closely parallels legislation now moving through the 
House of Representatives, meets those vital needs. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1960. A bill amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 
improve surety bond guarantees, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today o join Senator Kerry in 
introducing the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill which would 
reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee 
program. I appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business 
issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill. Together, our 
primary purpose is to improve the Surety Bond Guarantee SBG program and 
ensure that more small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds 
they require to compete and grow.
  Many surety bond companies refuse to bond small businesses because of 
the greater risks associated with underwriting new, unproven firms. 
Countless new businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets 
necessary to obtain a surety bond. Without bonding, small firms cannot 
secure the contracts they need to survive. For many small businesses, 
their inability to obtain surety bonds creates a barrier to entry which 
prevents them from competing in defense contracting, construction, 
services, and other markets.
  In order to reduce the risk to the surety firms issuing the bonds, 
the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible 
claims on bonds underwritten through the SBG program. Many small 
contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBG 
program and establish a bonding history. Over time, these businesses 
will out-grow the SBG program and will be able to obtain bonds in the 
regular, competitive marketplace.
  It is critical to understand that the number of participating 
sureties in the SBG program directly affects the number of small 
companies that can receive surety bonds. In fiscal year 2000, the SBG 
program had 28 participating surety bonding companies and issued 7,034 
bonds to small businesses. As of fiscal year 2006, there were only 10 
participating surety companies that issued 4,709 surety bonds. This 
downturn represents a 64 percent decline in the number of participating 
sureties and a decrease of 33 percent in the total number of bonds 
issued to small businesses. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee 
structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and 
recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and 
continue participating in the program.
  Our bill strives to address the reason behind the program's 
diminishing participation and increasing inability to help small 
businesses. To achieve that goal, our measure would 1. prohibit the SBA 
from underwriting a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already 
underwritten and approved the bond, 2. direct the SBA to promulgate 
regulations to allow surety companies to go to non-binding mediation 
with the SBA in order to resolve disputes over denied claims or other 
issues, 3. eliminate existing price controls, 4. require the SBA to be 
transparent in its fee structure, 5. clarify that Congress does not 
require the Surety Bond Guarantee program to be entirely self-funding 
or self-sufficient, and 6. raise the principal guarantee amount to $3 
million.
  We are collaborating with the SBA to reverse the downward trend 
regarding participating sureties and boost the number of small 
businesses receiving surety bonding. To accomplish this goal, the SBG 
program is working to reduce approval times by bolstering the capacity 
of companies to submit underwriting applications and claim requests 
online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and 
conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety 
bonding. These reforms, along with the necessary legislative changes 
Senator Kerry and I have proposed today, will help the program attract 
new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to 
secure sureties underwriting through the program.
  I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the Surety Bond 
Improvement Act which we wrote after consulting with small business 
owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this 
pivotal program. Without these remedies, the number of sureties in the 
program will continue to fall as will the capability of small 
businesses to secure surety bonds. For new companies, obtaining a 
surety bond will become a onerous barrier to entry and competition that 
they will be unable to overcome. I urge my colleges to work with 
Senator Kerry and me to assist small businesses by passing this crucial 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. 
        Carper):
  S. 1963. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
bonds

[[Page 22679]]

guaranteed by the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt 
bonds; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1963

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

     SECTION 1. BONDS GUARANTEED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 149(b)(3)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for 
     certain insurance programs) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after ``Corporation,'', and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following: ``or any Federal 
     home loan bank,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1964. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
establish new separate fee schedule areas for physicians' services in 
States with multiple fee schedule areas to improve Medicare physician 
geographic payment accuracy, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
correct a longstanding flaw in the Medicare Geographic Practice Cost 
Index, GPCI, system that negatively impacts physicians in California 
and several other states.
  This legislation will allow counties that are underpaid by at least 5 
percent to be reclassified into a payment locality that reflects their 
own geographic costs.
  It holds harmless the counties, predominately rural ones, whose 
locality average would otherwise drop as other counties are 
reclassified.
  Finally, this legislation is fully offset by requiring that 
independent diagnostic laboratories comply with state and federal 
regulations. This will allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
services, CMS, to take action against unscrupulous operators, 
predominately in California, that seek Medicare reimbursements for 
inaccurate and unnecessary diagnostic testing.
  This legislation would benefit physicians who are currently underpaid 
in 10 States: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, and Washington.
  Congressman Sam Farr has introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2484, 
in the House of Representatives, which now has 12 cosponsors.
  The Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index measures the cost of 
providing a Medicare covered service in a geographic area. Medicare 
payments are supposed to reflect the varying costs of rent, malpractice 
insurance, and other expenses necessary to operate a medical process. 
Counties are assigned to ``payment localities'' that are supposed to 
accurately capture these costs.
  Here is the problem: some of these payment localities have not 
changed since 1997. Others have been in place since 1966. Many areas 
that were rural even 10 years have experienced significant population 
growth, as metropolitan areas and suburbs have spread. Many counties 
now find themselves in payment localities that do not accurately 
reflect their true practice costs.
  These payment discrepancies have a real and serious impact on 
physicians and the Medicare beneficiaries they are unable to serve. My 
home State of California has been hit particularly hard.
  San Diego County physicians are underpaid by 5.5 percent. A number of 
physicians have left the county and 60 percent of remaining San Diego 
physicians report that they cannot recruit new doctors to their 
practices.
  Santa Cruz County receives a 10.2 percent underpayment, and as a 
result, no physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Instead, 
they are moving to neighboring Santa Clara, which has similar practice 
cost expense, but is reimbursed at a rate that is at least 22 percent 
higher. This means that seniors often need to travel at least 20 miles 
to see a physician.
  Sacramento County, a major metropolitan area, is underpaid by 4.6 
percent. The county's population has grown by 9.6 percent, while the 
number of physicians has declined by 11 percent.
  Sonoma County physicians are paid at least 8 percent less than their 
geographic practice costs. They have experienced at 10 percent decline 
in specialists and a 9 percent decline in primary care physicians.
  Seniors' Medicare cards are of no value if physicians in their 
community cannot afford to provide them with health care.
  The underpayment problem grows more severe every year, and the longer 
we wait to address it, the more drastic the solution will need to be. 
This legislation provides a common sense solution, increasing payment 
for those facing the most drastic underpayments, while protecting other 
counties from cuts in the process.
  This is an issue of equity. It costs more to provide health care in 
expensive areas, and physicians serving our seniors must be fairly 
compensated.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1964

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

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

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

     The Secretary shall first apply the previous sentence to 
     services furnished during 2008 and shall again apply it each 
     third year thereafter.''.
       (b) Offsetting Funding Through Requirement for Annual 
     Certification of Compliance With State Licensure Requirements 
     for Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities (IDTF).--
       (1) In general.--Section 1862(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (21);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (22) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(23) where such expenses are for a diagnostic laboratory 
     test under section 1861(s)(3) performed in an independent 
     diagnostic testing facility in a State or locality described 
     in section 1861(s)(16) unless within the previous 12 months 
     the State or locality (whichever is or are applicable) has 
     certified that the facility is in compliance with all 
     applicable State (or local) licensure requirements.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to tests performed on or after January 1, 2008.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 1966. A bill to reauthorize HIV/AIDS assistance; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
Malaria Act of 2003, known as the Leadership Act, the largest 
international health initiative in history dedicated to a single 
disease.
  Five years ago, there was little hope in Africa and the developing 
world of an effective response to HIV/AIDS.

[[Page 22680]]

Tragically, many of the nations hardest hit by this disease are among 
those with the fewest resources to draw on for a response. There 
appeared to be little basis for hope.
  Today, the pandemic continues. Yet there has been a change, and the 
American people have led that change.
  The original Leadership Act authorized $15 billion in appropriations 
over 5 years. And in a significant departure from earlier approaches to 
development, it linked that funding to accountability for goals: 
support for treatment of 2 million people, prevention of 7 million new 
infections, care for 10 million people, including orphans and 
vulnerable children.
  As many Senators will recall, when this legislation was first enacted 
in 2003, it was done with a certain amount of haste and after a request 
from the President for quick action. The G-8 summit was fast 
approaching, but even more importantly, rapid Senate action meant that 
the program could be established quickly, so that money could start to 
flow quickly to the fight. Given this, the Senate acted swiftly, 
passing the bill almost without amendment.
  Now we are approaching the expiration of that 5-year authorization at 
the end of fiscal year 2008. Whatever our misgivings about the 
Leadership Act as we enacted it in 2003, at this point we need to judge 
it by the results it has enabled us to deliver. Those results are 
simply remarkable.
  At the time the Leadership Act was announced, only 50,000 people in 
all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Yet 
through March of this year, the act has supported treatment for over 
1.1 million men, women and children, over a million of them are in 
Africa, in those 15 countries where AIDS was on the verge of wiping out 
whole generations. In addition to these focus countries, we are working 
with one hundred other countries as well touching millions of other 
lives. Five years ago, HIV was a death sentence. Now there is hope.
  During the first 3\1/2\ years of the act, U.S. bilateral programs 
have supported services for pregnant women to avoid transmission of HIV 
to their babies during more than 6 million pregnancies. In over 533,000 
of those pregnancies, the women were found to be HIV-positive and 
received antiretroviral prophylaxis, preventing an estimated 101,000 
infant infections through March 2007.
  Before the advent of the Leadership Act, there was little concerted 
effort to meet the needs of those orphaned by AIDS, or of other 
children made vulnerable by it. We have now supported care for more 
than 2 million orphans and vulnerable children, as well as 2.5 million 
people living with HIV/AIDS, through September 2006.
  Effective prevention, treatment and care all depend to a large extent 
on people knowing their HIV status, so they can take the necessary 
steps to stay healthy. The U.S. has supported 18.7 million HIV 
counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children.
  Across the act's programs, the majority of services have been 
provided to women and girls, and a growing number of services are 
reaching children.
  Our financial investment in this fight has been critical to our 
success, and thanks in large part to the flexibility of the Leadership 
Act, we have been able to obligate over 94 percent of its available 
$12.3 billion appropriated through this fiscal year.
  In addition to support for the U.S. bilateral programs, the 
Leadership Act has also authorized support for the Global Fund to Fight 
AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund provides an important 
avenue for the rest of the world to substantially increase its 
commitment, as we have done. The U.S. is the largest supporter of the 
Global Fund, having provided some $2 billion so far. It is important 
for the American people to understand and for the rest of the world to 
remember, that the American people are responsible for approximately 
\1/3\ of all the funding received by the fund.
  As we survey the results achieved by this legislation, it is apparent 
that our efforts have been exceptionally successful. But to build on 
that success, we must reauthorize the legislation for another 5 years. 
As we consider how to accomplish that reauthorization task, it is 
important to note that the vast majority of the authorities needed for 
the next phase of our effort are already contained in the current 
Leadership Act.
  The necessity for new authorities is in the eye of the beholder. Many 
Senators may wish to enhance issues such as TB/HIV, gender, nutrition, 
human capacity, infrastructure and health systems, and education. But 
the current law already articulates and authorizes activities in these 
very same areas, as evidenced by the many activities in these areas 
that the act has undertaken under existing authorities.
  In this case, I believe we should follow the old adage, ``If it ain't 
broke, don't fix it.'' We have a good, if not perfect, law that is 
succeeding. In lieu of drafting an entirely new bill, today I introduce 
a reauthorization which preserves the bulk of the authorities that have 
enabled the program succeed and makes only minor modifications.
  The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator has interpreted the existing 
authorities well and has listened to the Congress and many 
stakeholders. As the Institute of Medicine recently said, the Global 
Leadership Act is a ``learning organization.'' The Coordinator is the 
first to admit, as he has before Congressional committees, that we can 
do better in every area of implementation. But new authorities are not 
needed; these are issues of implementation. In short, rather than 
absorbing the time of Congress, the coordinator, as well as 
stakeholders in drafting an entirely new bill, we should empower them 
to continue the work they are doing to improve upon program 
implementation utilizing the experience of these past 3\1/2\ years.
  Let me highlight the basic changes I am suggesting to the existing 
legislation. First, it would increase to $30 billion the authorization 
for the next five fiscal years 2009-2013, a doubling of the initial 
commitment. I recognize that Senators may wish to revisit that funding 
level, and I trust that there will be opportunities for them to do so, 
in committee and on the floor.
  Second, as the Institute of Medicine and others have argued, I 
believe we need to keep the bill as free of funding directives as 
possible in order to ensure maximum flexibility for implementation. I 
am proposing that only two funding directives be included, one modified 
from its current form, the other maintained as is.
  The first modification would seek to address the abstinence directive 
in current law. The current Leadership Act requires that 33 percent of 
all prevention funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. 
The problem with this directive is that some countries need to focus 
their efforts not on abstinence per se but on, for example, mother-to-
child transmission, an activity which is considered to be nonsexual 
transmission of HIV/AIDS. The original directive thus forced theses 
countries to either spend money in areas where they did not necessarily 
need to spend it or to divert funds from areas where they truly needed 
to.
  The administration had interpreted and implemented this provision so 
as to include both abstinence and faithfulness programs, the `AB' of 
`ABC,' which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, and the correct and 
consistent use of condoms. The directive has been helpful in ensuring 
an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to prevention. The ABC 
paradigm for prevention was developed in Africa by Africans, in order 
to address the wide range of risks faced by people within their 
nations, particularly in the context of generalized epidemics where HIV 
is widespread throughout the population. Recent evidence from a growing 
number of African countries shows a correlation between the adoption of 
all three of the ABC behaviors, and a clear association with declining 
HIV prevalence.
  Before the creation of the U.S. Global Aids Coordinator, the U.S. 
Government had relatively little experience implementing behavior 
change programs for global HIV/AIDS that included the whole array of 
ABC behavior change. This was the rationale for the directive, and I 
believe it has served a useful purpose. However, I agree with many

[[Page 22681]]

others that we can improve upon it as we look to the future.
  The language I propose would provide that 50 percent of funding for 
prevention of sexual transmission of HIV, a sub-set all prevention 
funding, be dedicated to abstinence and faithfulness. This will enable 
greater flexibility to countries whose situation mirrors the one just 
described.
  At the same time, the language would ensure the continuation of 
funding for abstinence and faithfulness programs as part of 
comprehensive, evidence-based ABC activities. I think this compromise 
approach is the right one that can win support from across the 
political spectrum and provide increased flexibility while ensuring 
continued support for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention.
  There are a number of other directives in the current law that need 
no longer be maintained and the new bill does not contain them. The one 
other directive that I believe must be maintained is that 10 percent of 
funding be devoted to programs for orphans and vulnerable children, or 
``OVCs''. As I have noted, there were few programs focused on the needs 
of these children before the Leadership Act of 2005 and we remain in 
the early stages of the essential effort to serve them. This is one of 
the aspects of our effort that is most strongly supported by the 
American people, the maintenance of this directive will help to ensure 
that this effort remains focused on those who need our support the 
most. The directive will also help ensure the success of the Assistance 
for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act 
of 2005, a bill I drafted, one cosponsored by eleven of my Senate 
colleagues, and which the Congress passed in October 2005.
  Finally, let me describe some new language proposed for the inclusion 
regarding the Global Fund, an organization that enjoys wide support 
here in Congress. The Global Fund is a critically important partner of 
the U.S. in our fight against HIV/AIDS. Our contributions are not only 
financial, we are also active on its board, and our U.S. personnel 
overseas provide the technical assistance needed for the Global Fund's 
grants to work.
  However, the fund is subject to pressures from many donors and in 
many directions. It has become clear that it would benefit from greater 
transparency and accountability. In keeping with my concerns with 
transparency and accountability of international organizations that 
receive U.S. funding, including the World Bank and International 
Monetary Fund, my proposed language would establish similar benchmarks 
for U.S. funding for the Global Fund. I don't believe any of these 
proposed benchmarks will be controversial, but if Senators have 
concerns about any of them, I look forward to working with them to 
address them.
  It is also worth noting that the bill would maintain the limitation 
in the existing Leadership Act that U.S. contributions to the fund may 
never exceed 33 percent of its funding from all sources. This 
limitation has proven to be a valuable tool for increasing 
contributions to the fund from other funding sources, such as other 
governments, and I believe there is wide agreement that this provision 
should be maintained as we move forward.
  In closing, let me turn to the issue of legislative timing. It is 
critical to the contents of my approach to reauthorization. It is 
critically important to reauthorize this bill during 2007, as opposed 
to awaiting its expiration September 2008.
  The US Global Aids Coordinator depends on his implementing partners, 
including host governments and nongovernmental organizations, including 
faith- and community-based organizations, to scale up programs rapidly 
to reach as many people as possible. They have been a critical part of 
programs success to date.
  But HIV and AIDS are different from many diseases: once HIV-positive 
persons are provided treatment or orphans enrolled in care programs, 
their treatment and care become ongoing commitments for program 
partners. Thus, for partners to continue to scale up programs in 2008, 
they need assurances of a continued U.S. commitment beyond 2008. These 
partners recognize that at this point, they have only a Presidential 
proposal, not actual reauthorization.
  In fact, some of my staff on the Foreign Relations Committee have 
recently returned from countries receiving our assistance and verified 
this concern. Various ministries of health are refusing to expand the 
number of patients currently receiving antiretroviral medication for 
fear that they will not receive enough money in the years to come to 
purchase next year's doses for these new patients.
  Without reauthorization in 2007, partners have indicated that they 
will be unable to scale up programs in 2008, and as my staff have 
confirmed, there is already evidence that some have begun to slow 
enrollment in programs. Without continued rapid scale-up this year and 
next, we may not achieve the ambitious goals for the first phase of 
PEFPAR, treatment for 2 million, prevention of 7 million new 
infections, care for 10 million, including orphans and vulnerable 
children. However, time will be needed to develop sustainable programs 
with commitments from our partner countries as we move into the next 5-
year commitment from the American people.
  Thus it is essential that we act before we go out of session this 
year. I recognize that we face a crowded calendar. But we can do it if 
we will take the most direct path to passage, a clean bill.
  This body can be proud of its contribution to the remarkable 
turnaround on the issue of global HIV/AIDS, from concern to action. We 
have represented well the compassion and generosity of the American 
people and the demand for accountability by the American taxpayer. I 
call on my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill to reauthorize 
the Leadership Act in 2007, and to extend the authorities that have 
enabled the American people to make such a difference in the lives of 
others.
  I have no pride of authorship. But we need to start the 
reauthorization process now. I welcome the involvement and inputs of my 
colleagues. We should let the mark-up and amendment process work. 
Secondly, I would welcome the assistance of other Committees and their 
memberships. Thirdly, I look for strong support and guidance from the 
NGO and faith-based communities. These organizations will be key to the 
reauthorization effort. We will require the constructive engagement of 
the administration in this reauthorization effort.
  If we pull together and display the spirit of compromise necessary 
for good legislation, we can complete the job in 2007.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1966

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``HIV/AIDS Assistance 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS TO ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       (a) Promotion of Abstinence, Fidelity, and Other 
     Preventative Measures.--Section 403(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 
     7673(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Promotion of Abstinence, Fidelity, and Other 
     Preventative Measures.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations under section 401 and available for programs 
     and activities that include a priority emphasis on public 
     health measures to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV 
     shall be dedicated to abstinence and fidelity as components 
     of a comprehensive approach including abstinence, fidelity, 
     and the correct and consistent use of condoms, consistent 
     with other provisions of law and the epidemiology of HIV 
     infection in a given

[[Page 22682]]

     country. Programs and activities that implement or purchase 
     new prevention technologies or modalities such as medical 
     male circumcision, pre-exposure prophylaxis, or microbicides 
     shall not be included in determining compliance with this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Extension of Orphans and Vulnerable Children Funding 
     Requirement.--Section 403(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7673(b)) 
     is amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.

     SEC. 4. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

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

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

       (a) Authority to Increase Proportional Support.--Section 
     202(d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7622(d)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Authority to increase proportional support.--
       ``(A) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(i) The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
     Malaria is an innovative financing mechanism to combat the 
     three diseases, and it has made progress in many areas.
       ``(ii) The United States Government is the largest 
     supporter of the Fund, both in terms of resources and 
     technical support.
       ``(iii) The United States made the founding contribution to 
     the Funds, remains committed to the original vision for the 
     Fund, and is fully committed to its success.
       ``(B) Authority.--The President may increase proportional 
     support for the Fund, within the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act, if benchmarks for performance, 
     accountability, and transparency are satisfactorily met, and 
     if the Fund remains committed to its founding principles. The 
     United States Global AIDS Coordinator should consider the 
     benchmarks set forth in subparagraphs (C) and (D) in 
     assessing whether to make the annual contribution of the 
     United States Government to the Fund.
       ``(C) Benchmarks related to transparency and 
     accountability.--Increased proportional support for the Fund 
     should be based upon achievement of the following benchmarks 
     related to transparency and accountability:
       ``(i) As recommended by the Government Accountability 
     Office, the Fund Secretariat has established standardized 
     expectations for the performance of Local Fund Agents (LFAs), 
     is undertaking a systematic assessment of the performance of 
     LFAs, and is making available for public review, according to 
     the Fund Board's policies and practices on disclosure of 
     information, a regular collection and analysis of performance 
     data of Fund grants, which shall cover both Principal 
     Recipients and sub-recipients.
       ``(ii) A well-staffed, independent Office of the Inspector 
     General reports directly to the Board and is responsible for 
     regular, publicly published audits of both financial and 
     programmatic and reporting aspects of the Fund, its grantees, 
     and LFAs.
       ``(iii) The Fund Secretariat has established and is 
     reporting publicly on standard indicators for all program 
     areas.
       ``(iv) The Fund Secretariat has established a database that 
     tracks all sub-recipients and the amounts of funds disbursed 
     to each, as well as the distribution of resources, by grant 
     and Principal Recipient, for prevention, care, treatment, the 
     purchases of drugs and commodities, and other purposes.
       ``(v) The Fund Board has established a penalty to offset 
     tariffs imposed by national governments on all goods and 
     services provided by the Fund.
       ``(vi) The Fund Board has successfully terminated its 
     Administrative Services Agreement with the World Health 
     Organization and completed the Fund Secretariat's transition 
     to a fully independent status under the Headquarters 
     Agreement the Fund has established with the Government of 
     Switzerland.
       ``(D) Benchmarks related to principles of fund.--Increased 
     proportional support for the Fund should be based upon 
     achievement of the following benchmarks related to the 
     founding principles of the Fund:
       ``(i) The Fund must maintain its status as a financing 
     institution.
       ``(ii) The Fund must remain focused on programs directly 
     related to HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
       ``(iii) The Fund Board must maintain its Comprehensive 
     Funding Policy, which requires confirmed pledges to cover the 
     full amount of new grants before the Board approves them.
       ``(iv) The Fund must maintain and make progress on 
     sustaining its multi-sectoral approach, through Country 
     Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) and in the implementation of 
     grants, as reflected in percent and resources allocated to 
     different sectors, including governments, civil society, and 
     faith- and community-based organizations.''.
       (b) Extension of Authorization.--Section 202(d) of such Act 
     is further amended by striking ``2008'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``2013''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 1969. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility 
of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander 
Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin 
Islands as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Alexander 
Hamilton Boyhood Home Act of 2007, a bill to study the suitability and 
feasibility of bringing resources related to Alexander Hamilton's 
boyhood on the island of St. Croix under the National Park System. I 
would like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Bill Nelson, Brownback, 
Harkin, and Crapo for lending early support to this legislation as 
original cosponsors. I especially note the strong support of Senator 
Rockefeller, who along with his family, has a special interest in this 
part of the U.S.
  Too little is known about Hamilton's childhood on the islands. We 
know he was born as a British subject on the island of Nevis in 1755. 
By the age of 10 he and his brother James found themselves under Danish 
rule on the island of St. Croix. Alexander's father had abandoned them, 
so his mother Rachel Faucett was the primary care giver and bread 
winner. It is believed they initially spent their days on a sugar 
plantation at Estate Grange, which was owned by Rachel's sister, Ann, 
and her husband, James Lytton. The Lyttons generously supported Rachel 
and her two boys for a short time. When the plantation was sold, the 
Lyttons helped Rachel to set up a store with an apartment on the upper 
floor in the nearby town of Christiansted.
  They had been there less than a year and Alexander, as an 11-year-old 
boy, had already taken a job as a clerk at the Beekman and Cruger 
trading post. This connection would serve him well after his mother 
died in 1769 and he was left to fend for himself. His early years with 
Beekman and Cruger not only

[[Page 22683]]

supported him financially, but they introduced him to business, 
economics, and trade.
  Hamilton learned a great deal from his surroundings on St. Croix, and 
his political ideologies as an adult were clearly influenced by his 
boyhood in the West Indies. His mother was known to have the largest 
library on the island, consisting of 34 classical books of various 
topics. Everyday life and culture must have left an impression on him, 
as well. He was constantly exposed to the brutality of slavery, which 
drove the plantation economy on St. Croix. His distaste for it as a boy 
would grow into political opposition to it in America. Historians also 
note that maturing in the West Indies made him unique among other 
American politicians of the day because he never had any loyalty to a 
specific State or region. He perceived the U.S. as one unified Nation 
with a strong central Government. To advocate that belief, Hamilton 
would later found the Federalist Party in America.
  Through his work, Alexander made several connections with influential 
people in the town. As he grew older, they began to recognize his 
talent and intellect and they decided to send him to New York with the 
funds to obtain an education. He left St. Croix at age 17, never to 
return, and the rest is now a central aspect of our Nation's history.
  Hamilton went on to be one of the great statesmen of our history, a 
Founding Father who was influential in all of the stages of our 
blossoming Nation. He fought with the colonies during the American 
Revolution and served as General Washington's personal secretary. After 
the Revolution he was elected to the Continental Congress. He authored 
the Federalist Papers to advocate ratification of the Constitution, 
which he would pen his own name to as a delegate from New York. Of 
course, he may be remembered most for his appointment as the first 
Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. His visage 
is perpetuated in history on the $10 bill as one of only two non-
presidential faces appearing on U.S. currency.
  Alexander Hamilton's immeasurable influence on the progress of our 
Nation deserves to be remembered and recognized. The remaining links to 
his boyhood on the island of St. Croix should be preserved and 
recognized for the benefit of the people. The Great House at Estate 
Grange is still there today along with a memorial marking the site 
where Alexander's mother was laid to rest. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation which would establish and fund a study to 
determine the feasability and suitability of a heritage area on St. 
Croix in honor of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Reed, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown, 
        Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1975. A bill to expand family and medical leave in support of 
servicemembers with combat-related injuries; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 14 years ago, the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, FMLA, declared the principle that workers should never be forced 
to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the 
years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken 
advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover 
from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. If 
ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to 
those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who 
have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to 
speed their recoveries, but most of all, they deserve the care of their 
closest loved ones.
  That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured 
Servicemembers Act, a bill I am proud to have authored along with 
Senator Clinton. The FMLA was the very first bill that President 
Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator 
Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting 
for over 20 years. Now, I am also pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, 
Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, 
Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this 
new legislation today.
  Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services 
Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through 
their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for 
America's Returning Wounded Warriors.
  It is unsurprising that the commission found that family members play 
a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The 
commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly 
inspiring: according to the commission's report, 33 percent of active 
duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend 
relocated for extended periods of time to help in their recoveries. It 
also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that 
their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. To quote 
from the commission's moving report:

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

  These loved ones bear a burden almost as sharp as the wound itself. 
The very least we can give them is the assurance that their jobs will 
be there when they return.
  It is for these reasons that the commission recommend that the FMLA 
be expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers 
up to 6 months of leave to care for their loved ones.
  The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act does just that. FMLA 
currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Given the severity of their 
injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more.
  For the first time, this bill offers FMLA leave not just to parents, 
spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin, including siblings. 
Families, not the government, should decide for themselves who takes on 
the work of caring for their injured loved ones. This bill recognizes 
that fact, and it is a major accomplishment.
  Our troops are laying their bodies on the line for us in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, every day. Our full debt to them is unpayable. But perhaps 
the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way, to make it 
possible for the love of family to heal their wounds. With their jobs 
protected, more family members will be able to do just that. What this 
bill does, then, is break down a barrier, between our troops and the 
care they need the most.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1976. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to include a 
provision on organic conversion in the environmental quality incentives 
program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and 
Baucus to introduce the Organic Conversion Assistance Act to help 
provide needed technical and conservation assistance to farmers and 
ranchers converting to organic agriculture. I wanted to thank Senator 
Leahy for his leadership on organic agricultural issues and Senator 
Baucus for his long-time support for Montana's farmers and ranchers.
  My wife and I have spent our careers farming organically on our farm 
near Big Sandy, MT. Nearly 20 years ago we were struggling to get ahead 
and trying to decide if we could really make it farming while so many 
of our neighbors were packing up and moving away. We knew at that time 
that if we didn't make some changes to our business we would end up 
like so many of our neighbors leaving rural Montana for jobs in town.

[[Page 22684]]

  In 1988, we took what was then a risk and converted our farm to 
organic production. Our motivations were mostly economic but partly for 
health reasons. We wanted to farm on our own terms and to make more 
money. When I farmed conventionally I felt beholden to one big company 
after another from buying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, to 
selling my grain to a corporation and shipping it by rail at high 
prices and we rarely came out ahead. Every season after I would spray 
for weeds and bugs, I would feel sick for a week afterwards.
  Organic agriculture let us take control of our farm and our 
livelihood. More and more farmers are converting to organics as 
consumer demand soars. Organics is now the fastest growing sector of 
the food industry expanding at a rate of over 20 percent a year. In 
Montana, we lead the Nation in organic wheat production and are a close 
second in the production of organic barley, peas and lentils. Consumer 
demand for organic products is growing so fast that we are now 
importing a significant portion of the organic food that is found in 
our grocery stores.
  In the U.S. we grow the highest quality and safest food in the world. 
I believe that increased production of domestically produced organic 
foods will help meet consumer demand, help keep farmers on the land, 
and because organic agriculture needs fewer inputs it helps conserve 
our land, and clean up our air and water. But if the U.S. is going to 
keep pace with imported organic products we need to get more acreage 
under organic production here at home.
  The legislation I am introducing today will provide conversion 
assistance to farmers making the transition from conventional to 
organic agriculture. Currently it takes 3 to 4 years to become 
certified organic, but during that period of time producers cannot 
receive the higher price that organics fetch in the market place. 
Furthermore, the shift towards a new way of farming and ranching 
creates technical challenges for many producers as they change the way 
they do things. Offering technical and educational assistance as well 
as cost-share funds for conservation initiatives under a certified 
organic plan will provide a needed helping hand to farmers. Making the 
conversion will help keep farmers on the land by putting a bit more 
money in their pockets and help our rural communities be viable. Many 
States have already adopted similar assistance programs and 
agricultural producers nationwide would benefit from having a 
consistent and available program in years to come.
  I would appreciate the support of my colleagues as this legislation 
moves forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1977. A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in 
a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global 
nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related 
material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use 
of nuclear technology; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the spread of nuclear weapons and related 
technology and the possibility that a nuclear weapon could fall into 
the hands of terrorists constitute the most urgent threat to our 
national security. As experts on this issue such as Henry Kissinger, 
George Shultz, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn have all warned, our current 
policies to deal with the threat posed by nuclear weapons are simply 
not adequate.
  We know al-Qaida has made it a goal to acquire a nuclear weapon. At 
the same time, significant quantities of the material necessary to make 
one remain vulnerable to theft in various parts of the world. And, to 
make matters worse, the world may be on the brink of a new and 
dangerous era with a growing number of nuclear-armed states, as 
illustrated by North Korea's nuclear test last year and Iran's refusal 
to halt its uranium enrichment program.
  So today, along with Senator Hagel, I am introducing the Nuclear 
Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which provides for sustained U.S. 
leadership in a global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce 
global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around 
the world.
  Securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at their source 
is the most direct and reliable way to prevent nuclear terrorism. 
Thanks to the leadership of Senators Nunn and Lugar in creating the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of Defense, 
there is no question that we have made significant progress in securing 
nuclear stockpiles. But there are still significant quantities of 
weapons-usable nuclear material that remain vulnerable to theft. In the 
civilian sector alone, there are an estimated 60 tons of highly 
enriched uranium, enough to make over 1,000 nuclear bombs, spread out 
at facilities in over 40 countries around the world. Many of these 
facilities do not have adequate physical security, leaving the material 
vulnerable to theft.
  The insecure storage of nuclear stockpiles has already led to an 
alarming number of attempted exchanges of small quantities of dangerous 
nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, 
confirmed 16 incidents between 1993 and 2005 that involved trafficking 
in relatively small amounts of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. 
That is 16 incidents too many, in my opinion, and 16 incidents that 
should not have been allowed to happen.
  Experts believe that a sophisticated terrorist group could 
potentially construct a crude nuclear bomb if it obtained the necessary 
amount of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The 9/11 Commission 
concluded that a trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly 
enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an 
orange could make a nuclear device that would level Lower Manhattan. 
Simply put, our ability to secure nuclear stockpiles around the world 
is what stands between the safety of the American people and a 
terrorism incident of almost unimaginable horror.
  It is imperative that we build and lead a truly global effort to 
secure all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to 
the highest standards to prevent them from falling into the wrong 
hands. It is also essential that we make preventing nuclear terrorism a 
top presidential priority--with the resources, diplomatic effort and 
funding to match the threat. We need to work with other countries to 
ensure effective and sustainable security of nuclear stockpiles and to 
ensure that the highest priority is placed on security of those weapons 
and materials that pose the greatest risk.
  The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act requires the President to 
submit to Congress a comprehensive threat reduction plan for ensuring 
that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable 
sites are secure by 2012. The plan must clearly designate agency 
responsibility and accountability, specify program goals and metrics 
for measuring progress, and outline estimated schedules and budget 
requirements.
  To meet this ambitious goal, the bill calls for accelerating U.S. 
programs to secure, consolidate, and reduce stocks of nuclear weapons 
and weapons-usable material, including highly enriched uranium at 
civilian nuclear facilities worldwide. Additional funding is authorized 
for the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an 
important program that secures and removes high-risk nuclear materials 
from vulnerable locations around the world.
  The bill calls for the United States to work cooperatively with other 
countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to develop 
and implement a comprehensive set of standards and best practices to 
provide effective physical protection and accounting for all stockpiles 
of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material.
  The bill also authorizes additional funding to improve our ability to 
trace the origin of nuclear material that might be transferred or used 
in a terrorist attack so that responsible parties can be held 
accountable.

[[Page 22685]]

  Given the nature of the threat we face from nuclear terrorism, we 
can't succeed if we act alone. Indeed, the danger of nuclear 
proliferation and nuclear terrorism reminds us of how critical global 
cooperation will be to U.S. security in the 21st century. America must 
lead in rebuilding the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet 
common challenges and confront common threats. And this legislation 
seeks to provide the tools to do just that.
  While nuclear terrorism remains a dire threat to our security, it is 
only one part of the overall threat posed by nuclear weapons. The 
Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act also addresses the need to reduce 
global arsenals and prevent the emergence of additional nuclear-armed 
nations. In all too many respects, the essential bargain that stands at 
the core of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is unraveling. 
Countries like North Korea and Iran are demonstrating that nuclear 
technology acquired for ostensibly civilian purposes can provide the 
basis for producing nuclear weapons. At the same time, established 
nuclear powers retain large arsenals and are reemphasizing the 
importance of nuclear weapons to their security.
  At the end of the Cold War, many had hoped and believed that the 
world was moving in the right direction to reduce the threat of nuclear 
weapons. America and Russia agreed to significant reductions in their 
massive nuclear arsenals. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were 
persuaded to give up their post-Soviet nuclear arsenals. The U.S.-
Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar program was 
established. In 1994, North Korea agreed to halt its plutonium 
production program. And in 1995, over 180 nations agreed to take 
further steps to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, 
and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.
  In the last 6 years, however, these positive trends have stalled--and 
in some cases regressed. While promising to leave the Cold War behind, 
President Bush abandoned the very policies his successors had pursued 
to bring the Cold War weapons competition to a peaceful and successful 
end. He unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty. He refused to support ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He opted for an arms reduction agreement with 
Russia in 2002 that does not include new verification provisions, does 
not require the dismantling of warheads or missiles, and allows each 
side to stockpile thousands of nondeployed weapons. And after ignoring 
the findings of U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground and launching a 
preemptive war against Iraq, President Bush lost much of the 
international goodwill that is required to mobilize global support to 
strengthen the beleaguered nuclear nonproliferation regime.
  The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act calls for a balanced and 
comprehensive set of initiatives that would strengthen the global 
nonproliferation regime. The bill authorizes $50 million to support the 
creation of a low enriched uranium reserve administered by the IAEA 
that would help guarantee the availability of fuel for commercial 
nuclear reactors. This international fuel bank can play an important 
role in dissuading countries from building their own uranium enrichment 
facilities. Additional funding is also authorized for the IAEA's 
Department of Safeguards to improve its ability to conduct effective 
inspections.
  To win the struggle against nuclear proliferation, we must also have 
the courage to lead by example. The bill calls for talks with Russia to 
reduce the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons and further reduce 
the number of strategic nuclear weapons in Russian and U.S stockpiles 
in a transparent and verifiable fashion, and in a manner consistent 
with the security of the United States. It also calls for considering 
changes in the alert status of U.S. and Russian forces to reduce the 
risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of nuclear 
weapons.
  Other initiatives called for in the bill include reaffirming support 
for and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taking 
steps to reconsider and ratify a global ban on nuclear testing, 
pursuing a long-overdue global agreement to verifiably halt the 
production of fissile material for weapons, and fully implementing the 
Lugar-Obama initiative that strengthens the ability of friendly foreign 
countries to stop the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and 
related material.
  With a bold, comprehensive approach and strong U.S. leadership, we 
can--and must--make significant strides in reducing the threat posed by 
nuclear weapons. America must lead the way again by marshalling a 
global effort to meet the challenge that rises above all others in 
urgency securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction. This bill, I believe, makes a significant 
contribution toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 1978. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to award grants to implement a co-teaching model for educating 
students with disabilities; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Co-Teaching Educator 
Professional Development Act of 2007 to help improve the education of 
children with disabilities.
  A result of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and 
the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, IDEA, is that States, districts, and schools in Rhode Island and 
nationwide have increasingly begun utilizing a ``co-teaching'' model to 
make sure that students with disabilities have the highest quality 
teachers. Co-teaching is a term that describes a general education 
teacher and a special education teacher jointly teaching students with 
and without disabilities in the same classroom. Co-teaching ensures 
that students with disabilities receive not only the special 
instruction, supports, and services they are entitled to under IDEA, 
but also are taught the same rigorous academic content as any other 
students.
  However, achieving this is no easy task. Successful co-teaching 
requires that educators truly work together so their knowledge and 
skills truly complement one another. At the end of the day that 
requires that specialized professional development is provided to these 
teachers.
  As such, the Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development Act of 
2007 would amend Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act to award 
competitive grants to school districts to provide high-quality 
professional development opportunities for general education teachers, 
special education teachers, principals, and administrators to ensure 
that these educators have the necessary pedagogical, collaborative, 
planning, and interpersonal skills to successfully implement a co-
teaching model and increase the achievement of students with 
disabilities. Such professional development training would help 
teachers, principals, and administrators address diverse learning and 
student needs; clearly define classroom, teaching, and decision-making 
responsibilities; develop effective communication, problem-solving, 
classroom management, and conflict resolution skills; and jointly 
develop and plan a student's IEP and overall classroom curriculum.
  In short, this bill provides teachers, principals, and administrators 
with the skills and tools to help ensure that children with 
disabilities receive the educational assistance and support they need 
and deserve. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and 
work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1978

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Co-Teaching Educator 
     Professional Development Act of 2007''.

[[Page 22686]]



     SEC. 2. CO-TEACHING EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 2151 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(g) Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development.--
       ``(1) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are to 
     ensure that--
       ``(A) students with disabilities are educated with their 
     peers in the least restrictive environment;
       ``(B) students with disabilities have access, with 
     appropriate supports and services, to the same academic 
     content as other students;
       ``(C) the requirements of section 1119(a) and section 
     612(a)(14)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act are met; and
       ``(D) general education teachers, special education 
     teachers, principals, and administrators who implement a co-
     teaching model for instructing students with disabilities are 
     provided with the necessary and effective professional 
     development and support to enhance their pedagogical, 
     collaborative, planning, and interpersonal skills and 
     increase the achievement of such students.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(i) one or more local educational agencies; or
       ``(ii) one or more local educational agencies in 
     collaboration with an institution of higher education, a 
     teacher organization, or a State educational agency.
       ``(B) Co-teaching.--The term `co-teaching' means an 
     instructional delivery option, offered either full-time or 
     part-time, based on a collaborative professional relationship 
     between a teacher with expertise in delivering instruction to 
     students with disabilities and a teacher with expertise in a 
     specific core content area or a team of such teachers, such 
     as a grade level team or a middle school team, for the 
     purpose of jointly delivering substantive instruction to a 
     diverse, blended group of students in a single general 
     education classroom and ensuring that students with 
     disabilities receive the special instruction, supports, and 
     services to which they are entitled while ensuring that they 
     can access a rigorous general curriculum in the least 
     restrictive environment.
       ``(3) Program authorized.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award, on a 
     competitive basis, grants to eligible entities to enable such 
     entities to provide professional development opportunities 
     and high-quality support for general education teachers and 
     special education teachers, principals, and administrators 
     that implement a co-teaching model. Such professional 
     development opportunities and support shall assist teachers, 
     principals, and administrators in--
       ``(i) clearly defining classroom, teaching, and decision-
     making roles and responsibilities, shared instructional and 
     educational goals and expectations, and shared accountability 
     for student outcomes;
       ``(ii) utilizing research-based co-teaching strategies and 
     approaches for differentiated instruction, including 
     accommodations, modifications, and positive behavioral 
     supports to facilitate learning and address diverse learning 
     and student needs;
       ``(iii) improving the participation and engagement of all 
     students in classes that use co-teaching while meeting the 
     individualized needs of students with disabilities;
       ``(iv) improving collaboration skills for fostering a 
     constructive professional co-teaching partnership, including 
     development of effective communication, problem-solving, and 
     conflict resolution skills;
       ``(v) enhancing time, resource, and classroom management 
     skills;
       ``(vi) effectively scheduling and lesson planning for co-
     teaching instruction, including common planning time for such 
     purpose;
       ``(vii) effectively involving parents and families of 
     students with disabilities in co-teaching program 
     development, implementation, and evaluation;
       ``(viii) jointly developing and planning a student's IEP 
     and overall classroom curriculum for co-teaching instruction;
       ``(ix) implementing strategies in a class that uses co-
     teaching for improving student learning gains on required 
     State assessments, including alternate assessments;
       ``(x) providing constructive feedback and coaching on a 
     regular basis to improve instructional and classroom 
     practices; and
       ``(xi) developing clear and tailored instructional 
     strategies, plans, procedures, practices, and assessment 
     tools for remediation or developmental specialized 
     instruction designed to meet, in a class that uses co-
     teaching, the goals and objectives in a student's IEP.
       ``(4) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(5) Evaluation.--Each program receiving a grant under 
     this subsection shall report on the effectiveness of the 
     professional development being provided based on not less 
     than the following criteria:
       ``(A) Student academic learning gains.
       ``(B) Teacher retention.
       ``(C) Meeting IEP goals and objectives.
       ``(D) The increase in the amount of time spent by students 
     with disabilities on general education curriculum in a 
     general education setting.
       ``(E) Student behavior.
       ``(F) Evaluation of school professionals.
       ``(G) Parent, family, and community involvement.
       ``(H) The support and commitment of principals and 
     administrators.
       ``(I) Teacher satisfaction.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 1979. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to provide for school improvement, comprehensive, high-quality 
multi-year induction and mentoring for new teachers, and professional 
development for experienced teachers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the School Improvement 
through Teacher Quality Act of 2007, to foster the development of a 
highly skilled and effective teacher workforce capable of improving 
student achievement in this country.
  We are slated to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act this Congress for the first time since 2001. The key to this 
reauthorization will be ensuring that states, districts, and schools 
are given the resources, tools, and support to improve student 
learning, including targeted, high-quality efforts to improve a school 
when it is identified as in need of improvement under the law.
  Improving teacher quality is the single most effective step we can 
take to increase student achievement and turnaround failing schools. 
Studies have found that 40 to 90 percent of the difference in student 
test scores can be attributed to teacher quality. Unfortunately, new 
teachers, not just those in hard-to-staff schools, face such 
challenging working conditions that nearly half leave the profession 
within their first 5 years, one-third leave within their first 3 years, 
and 14 percent leave by the end of their first year.
  However, research has shown that offering new teachers comprehensive, 
multi-year mentoring and guidance cuts attrition rates in half, and 
helps these teachers become high-quality professionals who improve 
student achievement. At the same time, we know that experienced 
teachers also need effective, sustained professional development to 
maintain and improve their teaching skills.
  For these reasons, I am introducing the School Improvement through 
Teacher Quality Act of 2007, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Obama, and 
Brown. This legislation amends Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act 
to create a new $500 million formula-based program for school districts 
to provide targeted assistance so teachers in low-performing, high-
poverty schools get comprehensive, high-quality multi-year guidance and 
mentoring for new teachers and systematic, sustained professional 
development for experienced teachers.
  First, this legislation would direct funding to districts with 
failing schools to help implement a high-quality induction program for 
teachers throughout at least their first 2 years of full-time teaching. 
This intensive support for beginning teachers would incorporate proven 
strategies such as: Rigorous mentor selection; ongoing mentoring with 
school-protected release time; research-based professional development 
for mentors and school leaders; and research-based teaching practices, 
formative assessments, and teacher portfolios. Research has 
demonstrated that such mentoring for beginning teachers at institutions 
like the New Teacher Center at University of California, Santa Cruz 
provides a return on investment, $1.66 for every $1 spent; increases 
the new teacher retention rate, to 88 percent after 6 years in some 
California districts; and strengthens beginning teacher effectiveness 
to such an extent that their students demonstrate learning gains 
similar to those students of their more veteran counterparts.
  Second, the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007 
would offer funding for struggling

[[Page 22687]]

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

                                S. 1979

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

     SECTION 1. REFERENCES.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 3. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.

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

     SEC. 4. LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.

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

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

     ``SEC. 2501. LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.

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

[[Page 22688]]

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

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

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

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

       ``(xii) involve an ongoing process of data collection and 
     data analysis to inform teaching practice; and
       ``(xiii) is used to guide professional development, and not 
     for the purpose of teacher evaluation or employment 
     decisions; and
       ``(2) implement high-impact, professional development that 
     is ongoing and sustained by--
       ``(A) assisting the school to--

[[Page 22689]]

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

     SEC. 5. HIGH IMPACT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

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

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

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

[[Page 22690]]

     school improvement and instructional goals; and
       ``(I) improves the academic content knowledge, as well as 
     knowledge to assess the student academic achievement and how 
     to use the results of such assessments to improve 
     instruction, of teachers in the subject matter or academic 
     content areas in which the teachers are considered highly 
     qualified.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1980. A bill to improve the quality of, and access to, long-term 
care; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Long-Term 
Care Quality and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined 
by my colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
  As Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am 
committed to improving the financing and delivery of long-term care. 
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national 
spending for long-term care was almost $160 billion in 2002, 
representing about 12 percent of all personal health care expenditures. 
While those numbers are already staggering, we also know that the need 
for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in coming decades. 
Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care services are over 
age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030.
  Providing quality long-term care services for America's frail, 
elderly and disabled is the priority of nursing homes and assisted 
living facilities. I applaud their work, but recognize we must do more 
to improve care and contain costs. When you consider that eight of ten 
nursing home residents rely on Medicare and Medicaid for their long-
term care needs, it is apparent that Congress has a responsibility to 
improve these programs so they are sustainable for years to come.
  That is why I am introducing The Long-Term Care Quality and 
Modernization Act of 2007 with Senator Lincoln. This bill will address 
several problems nursing homes are experiencing with federal 
regulations, workforce shortages and taxes related to building 
depreciation. The issue of long-term care expenditures need not be an 
insurmountable task. It will require action and cooperation by public 
officials and private providers as we work to find ways to help 
Americans become better prepared for their long-term care needs.
  However, we cannot do it alone. Individuals must take responsibility 
and begin planning for their long-term care needs. With our national 
savings rate in steady decline, I fear the American middle class is 
woefully unprepared to meet this coming challenges. As we move forward 
in our effort to help individuals stay financially stable in their 
later years, we must encourage them to purchase long-term care 
insurance and save for long-term care services.
  Today, millions of Americans are receiving or are in need of long-
term care services and supports. Surprisingly, more than 40 percent of 
persons receiving long-term care are between the ages of 18 and 64. 
Some were born with disabilities; others came to be disabled through 
accident or illness. No one can predict their future long-term health 
care needs. Therefore, everyone needs to be prepared.
  Included in the bill I am introducing today is The Long-Term Care 
Trust Account Act of 2007. My legislation will create a new type of 
savings vehicle for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated 
with long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance. 
An individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can 
contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a 
refundable 10 percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued 
on these accounts will be tax free, and funds can be withdrawn for the 
purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care 
services. The bill also will allow an individual to make contributions 
to another family members' Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will help 
many people in our country who want to help their parents or a loved 
one prepare for their health care needs.
  It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for 
their long-term care needs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 1981. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left 
Inside Act of 2007, which will provide new support for environmental 
education in our Nation's classrooms. Given the major environmental 
challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural 
world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first 
step.
  For more than three decades, environmental education has been a 
growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding 
to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 
21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some 
form of environmental education. Mr. President, 30 million students and 
1.2 million teachers annually are involved in these programs.
  Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many 
schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental 
programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related 
classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or 
popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental 
educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: 
the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack 
of funding for these critical programs.
  The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two 
causes. It would provide funding to States to train their teachers in 
the field of environmental education, and it would provide support for 
outdoor environmental education programs for children and a model 
environmental education curriculum. The bill would also create 
incentives, through new funding, for states to develop environmental 
literacy plans to make sure students have a solid understanding of our 
planet and its precious natural resources. Finally, the legislation 
would reestablish the Office of Environmental Education within the U.S. 
Department of Education to oversee critical environmental education 
activities. This legislation has broad support among national and state 
environmental groups and educational groups.
  The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of 
the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science 
Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will 
more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental 
issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and 
understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and 
global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a 
concerted, systemic approach to environmental education ...'' In the 
private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an 
environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term 
success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental 
practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for 
the future.
  Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources, 
maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are 
pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic 
development and national security. Finding widespread agreement about 
the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is 
difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's 
children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these 
critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part 
of the curriculum in our schools.
  I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of 
other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and 
have a connection with the natural world. I am

[[Page 22691]]

proud to sponsor this important legislation. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1981

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``No Child 
     Left Inside Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

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

                 TITLE I--ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS

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

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

Sec. 201. Environmental education.

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

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

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

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

                   TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS

Sec. 501. Department of Education Organization Act.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                 TITLE I--ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS

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

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

               ``Subpart 22--Environmental Literacy Plans

     ``SEC. 5621. ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

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

     ``SEC. 5622. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS.

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

[[Page 22692]]

       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after approval of 
     a State environmental literacy plan, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the chief executive officer of the State, in 
     cooperation with the State educational agency, shall submit 
     to the Secretary a report on the implementation of the State 
     plan.
       ``(2) Report requirements.--The report required by this 
     subsection shall be--
       ``(A) in the form specified by the Secretary;
       ``(B) based on the State's ongoing evaluation activities; 
     and
       ``(C) made readily available to the public.''.

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

     SEC. 201. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.

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

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

     ``SEC. 2501. PURPOSE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

          ``Subpart 23--Environmental Education Grant Program

     ``SEC. 5631. PURPOSE.

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

     ``SEC. 5632. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

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

     ``SEC. 5633. APPLICATIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 5634. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``Grant funds made available under this subpart shall be 
     used for 1 or more of the following:

[[Page 22693]]

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

     ``SEC. 5635. REPORTS.

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

     ``SEC. 5636. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 5637. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.

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

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

     SEC. 401. PROMOTION OF FIELD-BASED LEARNING.

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

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

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

                   TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS

     SEC. 501. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION ACT.

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

     ``SEC. 221. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.

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

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



                                         No Child Left Inside,

                                                   August 1, 2007.
     Hon. Jack Reed,
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. 
         Senate,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reed: As members of the No Child Left Inside 
     Coalition, we are writing to commend you for introducing the 
     No Child Left Inside Act of 2007, and we offer our support 
     for environmental education in the reauthorization of the No 
     Child Left Behind Act. While we applaud the thrust of the No 
     Child Left Behind Act, we believe adjustments are needed to 
     improve environmental consciousness in schools across the 
     country.
       Our coalition comprises over two dozen national and 
     regional education and environmental organizations. Together 
     we represent more than 7 million citizens who are passionate 
     about the inclusion of environmental education in students' 
     learning.
       The country is facing a host of complicated environmental 
     challenges, but we are not providing an adequate 
     environmental education to our young people. Indeed, over the 
     past few years many schools have cut back on instruction 
     related to the environment, canceling field trips and 
     meaningful outdoor explorations. Three decades of growth in 
     environmental education has been hampered by No Child Left 
     Behind, even as the nation's environmental issues have grown 
     increasingly complex.
       We believe it is critical to reverse this trend and provide 
     children with a solid understanding of the planet and the 
     problems it faces. As they will be called upon throughout 
     their lives to sort out various environmental claims and 
     issues impacting their jobs, health, security and 
     transportation, our children need to have the tools to be 
     able to make wise decisions and choices.
       To that end, we support several changes to the No Child 
     Left Behind Act that would emphasize the importance of 
     environmental education:
       New funding should be available to help states develop 
     rigorous environmental education standards and improve 
     teacher training.
       To be eligible for new environmental education funding, 
     states would be required to develop plans to ensure that 
     their students are environmentally literate.

[[Page 22694]]

       These changes will provide the incentives and support 
     school systems need to offer more and better environmental 
     instruction. The rewards are likely to be great. We know from 
     past research that students who take part in environmental 
     education programs become more engaged with school and do 
     better on standardized tests.
       Our coalition urges that the reauthorization of the No 
     Child Left Behind Act not only improve educational offerings 
     but provide new support for environmental education.
       Once again, we thank you for your leadership on this 
     important issue.
       If you would like additional information, please contact 
     Don Baugh, representing the No Child Left Inside Coalition.
           Sincerely,
         Pam Gluck, Executive Director, American Trails; Andrew J. 
           Falender, Executive Director, Appalachian Mountain 
           Club; Jen Levy, Executive Director, Association of 
           Nature Center Administrators; Steve Olson, Director of 
           Government Affairs, Association of Zoos and Aquariums; 
           Lori Whalen, Director of Education, Back to Natives 
           Restoration; William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake 
           Bay Foundation; Martin Blank, Staff Director, Coalition 
           for Community Schools; Josetta Hawthorne, Executive 
           Director, Council for Environmental Education; Kathleen 
           Rogers, President, Earth Day Network; Vince Meldrum, 
           President, Earth Force, Inc.; Mark Gold, President, 
           Heal the Bay; Ed Pembleton, Director, Leopold Education 
           Project; Laura A. Johnson, President, Mass Audubon; Tim 
           Merriman, Ph.D., Executive Director, National 
           Association of Interpretation; Judy Braus, Senior Vice 
           President for Education and Centers, National Audubon 
           Society; Joel Packer, Director, Education Policy and 
           Practice, National Education Association; Lori 
           Arguelles, President and CEO, National Marine Sanctuary 
           Foundation; John Thorner, Executive Director, National 
           Recreation and Park Association; Jodi Peterson, 
           Assistant Executive Director, National Science Teachers 
           Association; Nelda Brown, Executive Director, National 
           Service-Learning Partnership; Larry Schweiger, 
           President & CEO, National Wildlife Federation; Brian 
           Day, Executive Director, North American Association for 
           Environmental Education; Howard K. Vincent, President 
           and CEO, Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever; Kathy 
           McGlauflin, Senior Vice President of Education and 
           Director, Project Learning Tree; Shareen Knowlton, 
           President, Rhode Island Environmental Education 
           Association; Jack Mulvena, Executive Director, Rhode 
           Island Zoological Society Roger Williams Park Zoo; 
           David Lewis, Executive Director, Save San Francisco Bay 
           Association (Save The Bay); H. Curtis Spalding, 
           Executive Director, Save The Bay; Anthony D. Cortese, 
           President, Second Nature; Martin LeBlanc, National 
           Youth Education Director, Sierra Club; Lawrence A. 
           Selzer, President & CEO, The Conservation Fund; Bill 
           Mott, Director, The Ocean Project; Maribeth Oakes, 
           Director, The Wilderness Society National Wildlife 
           Refuge Program; John F. Calvelli, Senior Vice President 
           of Public Affairs, Wildlife Conservation Society; 
           Steven A. Culbertson, President & CEO, Youth Service 
           America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1982. A bill to provide for the establishment of the United States 
Employee Ownership Bank, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am introducing today with Senator Leahy 
the U.S. Employee Ownership Bank Act.
  At a time when the U.S. has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs; 
at a time when we are on the cusp of losing millions of high-paying 
information technology jobs, this legislation would begin to reverse 
that trend by providing employees with the resources they need to 
purchase their own businesses through Employee Stock Ownership Plans 
and Eligible Worker Owned Cooperatives.
  Specifically, this legislation would authorize $100 million to create 
a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank within the Department of Treasury to 
provide loans, loan guarantees, technical assistance, and grants to 
expand employee ownership throughout the country.
  Why is it so important for the Senate to provide incentives to expand 
employee ownership in this country? The answer is simple: employee 
ownership is one of the keys to creating a sustainable economy with 
jobs that pay a living wage.
  This legislation has the strong support of the ESOP Association, a 
nonprofit organization representing approximately 2,500 Employee Stock 
Ownership Plans throughout the country. Let me quote from a letter they 
recently sent to my office:

       Your legislation is a modest first step in awakening our 
     Government to the fact that in the 21st Century the inclusion 
     of employees as owners of the companies where they work in a 
     meaningful manner should be a key component of any national 
     competitiveness program. If the Senate adopts your 
     legislation, and it eventually becomes law, we assure you 
     that the ESOP community will work constructively to ensure 
     that the loan and grant program you propose works effectively 
     to benefit the employee owners, the employee owned companies, 
     and our American economy.

  Every day we read in the papers about plants that are being moved to 
China, Mexico, and a number of other low wage countries. Since a number 
of these factories were making profits, shutting them down was 
unnecessary and could have been avoided by selling these factories to 
their employees through ESOPs or worker-owned cooperatives.
  Since 2000, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost 3.2 million 
decent-paying jobs. Put another way, since George W. Bush has been 
elected President, this country has seen one out of every six factory 
jobs disappear.
  In addition, the Associated Press recently reported about a study by 
Moody's which found that ``16 percent of the nation's 379 metropolitan 
areas are in recession, reflecting primarily the troubles in 
manufacturing.''
  In other words, about 16 percent of the biggest cities in this 
country are experiencing a recession, largely due to the loss of 
decent-paying manufacturing jobs. I suspect that this problem is even 
worse in rural areas. In my small State of Vermont, we have lost about 
20 percent of our manufacturing jobs over the past 6 years representing 
over 10,000 jobs.
  Let me just give you an example of some of the jobs that have been 
lost. From 2001-2006 the United States of America experienced the loss 
of 42 percent of our communication equipment jobs; 37 percent of our 
semiconductor and electronic component manufacturing jobs; 43 percent 
of our textile jobs; and about half of our apparel jobs.
  Not only are we losing decent-paying manufacturing jobs, we are also 
losing high-paying information technology jobs as well.
  While the loss of manufacturing jobs has been well-documented, it may 
come as a surprise to some that from January of 2001 to January of 
2006, the information sector of the U.S. economy lost over 640,000 jobs 
or more than 17 percent of its workforce.
  Unfortunately, the worst may be yet to come. Alan Blinder, an 
economist at Princeton and the former Vice Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve has recently concluded that between 30 and 40 million jobs in 
the United States are vulnerable to overseas outsourcing over the next 
10 to 20 years.
  Would expanding employee ownership be a cure-all for what ails the 
manufacturing and information technology sectors? Of course it 
wouldn't. But I strongly believe that employee ownership can and should 
be one of the central strategies in combating the outsourcing of 
American jobs. Simply put, workers who are also owners will not move 
their own jobs to China.
  Today, there are some 11,000 Employee Stock Ownership Plans, hundreds 
of worker owned cooperatives, and thousands of other companies with 
some form of employee ownership, and most of them are thriving.
  In fact, employee ownership has been proven to increase employment, 
increase productivity, increase sales, and increase wages in the United 
States. According to a Rutgers University study, broad based employee 
ownership boosts company productivity by 4 percent shareholder return 
by 2 percent and profits by 14 percent. Similar studies have shown that 
ESOP companies paid their hourly workers between 5 to 12 percent better 
than non-ESOP companies.

[[Page 22695]]

  Yet, despite the important role that worker ownership can play in 
revitalizing our economy, the Federal Government has failed to commit 
the resources needed to allow employee ownership to realize its true 
potential, and that is why this legislation is so important.
  When I was the Ranking Member of the Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I was 
able to hold a hearing on this issue nearly 4 years ago.
  During the hearing, a number of witnesses told the Subcommittee that 
if Federal loans, loan guarantees, technical assistance and grants were 
made available for the expansion of employee ownership, factories that 
are now closed and abandoned would be open for business today.
  For example, the Subcommittee heard from Larry Owenby who worked at 
the RFS Ecusta mill in North Carolina for 30 years until one day, the 
company decided to shut down.
  Other witnesses talked about factories that were closed in 
Mississippi, Alabama and Ohio. All of the witnesses testified in 
support of Federal loans, loan guarantees and technical assistance for 
the expansion of employee ownership. In fact, if this assistance had 
been around before the plants had closed, many of them would still be 
employed today as employee owners.
  The final point that I want to make is that the Federal Government, 
through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, is already providing billions of 
dollars in loans, loan guarantees and other assistance to large, multi-
national companies, such as Boeing, General Electric, and Halliburton. 
Many of these companies happen to be some of the largest job cutters in 
America, as they have moved hundreds of thousands of jobs to China, 
India, and Mexico.
  In my opinion, instead of providing corporate welfare to large 
corporations that are throwing American workers out on the street as 
they move overseas, we should be providing employees with the tools 
they need to create and retain jobs right here in the United States 
through the expansion of employee ownership.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

                          ____________________