[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2437-2443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 403. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for 
charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation 
today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for 
volunteers.
  Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable 
purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for 
their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either 
the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization 
reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information 
return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the 
amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 
2007, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 48.5 
cents per mile, nearly three and a half times the volunteer rate.
  While we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a 
greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile 
limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and 
other nonprofit groups.

[[Page 2438]]

  I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to 
increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that 
brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on 
Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide 
services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging 
depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and 
transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other 
essential services.
  Many of my colleagues know the senior meals program is one of the 
most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and 
ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be 
taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. In fact, it 
is often the case that the senior meals program is the point at which 
many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services 
that can help them. For that reason, these programs are important not 
only for the essential nutrition services they provide, but also for 
the many other critical services that the frail elderly may need.
  Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has 
stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to 
leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal 
support. Regrettably, the 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has 
made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage 
County reported that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer 
their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be 
found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a 
provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come 
directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other 
services.
  The same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable 
organizations that provide essential services to communities across our 
Nation.
  By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage 
reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2007 the comparable 
mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 48.5 cents per 
mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same 
meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their 
employees nearly three and a half times the amount permitted the 
volunteer without a tax consequence.
  This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer 
reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents 
per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not 
increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents 
per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I 
introduced in the 109th Congress, and largely the same as the version I 
introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on 
volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, 
and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate 
the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase 
the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 
years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do 
everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I 
have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and 
make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary 
penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The 
provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS 
bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the 
final version of that bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure 
charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that 
play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will 
simplify the Tax Code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers 
themselves.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 403

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

     SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS 
                   EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     after section 139A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139B. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Gross income of an individual does not 
     include amounts received, from an organization described in 
     section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating expenses with 
     respect to use of a passenger automobile for the benefit of 
     such organization. The preceding sentence shall apply only to 
     the extent that such reimbursement would be deductible under 
     this chapter if section 274(d) were applied--
       ``(1) by using the standard business mileage rate 
     established under such section, and
       ``(2) as if the individual were an employee of an 
     organization not described in section 170(c).
       ``(b) No Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to any expenses if the individual claims a 
     deduction or credit for such expenses under any other 
     provision of this title.
       ``(c) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041 
     shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from 
     income under subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 139A and inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 139B. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for 
              charity.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTY LIMITATION FOR 
                   THE UNDERPAYMENT OR OVERPAYMENT OF TAX DUE TO 
                   FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--Section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to fraud and false statements) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any person who--'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Any person who--'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Increase in Monetary Limitation for Underpayment or 
     Overpayment of Tax Due to Fraud.--If any portion of any 
     underpayment (as defined in section 6664(a)) or overpayment 
     (as defined in section 6401(a)) of tax required to be shown 
     on a return is attributable to fraudulent action described in 
     subsection (a), the applicable dollar amount under subsection 
     (a) shall in no event be less than an amount equal to such 
     portion. A rule similar to the rule under section 6663(b) 
     shall apply for purposes of determining the portion so 
     attributable.''.
       (b) Increase in Penalties.--
       (1) Attempt to evade or defeat tax.--Section 7201 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$250,000'',
       (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000'', 
     and
       (C) by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (2) Willful failure to file return, supply information, or 
     pay tax.--Section 7203 of such Code is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``misdemeanor'' and inserting ``felony'', 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``10 years'', and
       (B) by striking the third sentence.
       (3) Fraud and false statements.--Section 7206(a) of such 
     Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$250,000'',
       (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000'', 
     and
       (C) by striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to underpayments and overpayments attributable to 
     actions occurring after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Thune. Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Tester, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. 
        Conrad):
  S. 404. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
require the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements 
by September 30, 2007; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.

[[Page 2439]]


  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is of 
great importance to livestock producers and consumers in my home State 
of Wyoming, and to people across the Nation. My bill would expedite the 
implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, for 
beef and other agricultural products, and set that date at September 
30, 2007. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me in this effort, as 
does Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Tester, Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Dorgan, Senator Enzi, and Senator Conrad.
  Consumers drive our economy, and it is important that we provide them 
relevant information about the products they are purchasing. U.S. 
consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory COOL. They have a right to 
know where their food comes from. Labeling provides more product 
information, increased consumer choice, and the chance to support 
American agriculture. Labeling also allows our producers to distinguish 
their superior products. Trade is not going away. With increased trade 
comes an increase in the importance of country of origin labeling. Many 
nations already label food and other products--including the United 
States. If it is good enough for T-shirts, it ought to be good enough 
for T-bones.
  Mandatory COOL was signed into law with the 2002 Farm Bill. I was an 
original supporter of COOL during the Farm Bill debate, and I have 
become increasingly frustrated with efforts to delay its 
implementation. The latest delay was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2006 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, and I voted against the bill for that 
reason.
  Producers and consumers have waited long enough for country of origin 
labeling. It is high time we make it happen.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 404

       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 ``Country of Origin Labeling 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 285 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1638d) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
cosponsoring the implementation of country of origin labeling 
requirements for food sold in the United States. Congress originally 
passed country of origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill, but has twice 
voted to delay its implementation. Country-of-origin labeling is good 
for American consumers; it is good for our farmers and ranchers, and 
the time to implement it is now.
  American farmers and ranchers raise the highest quality agricultural 
goods in the world. Country of origin labeling benefits farmers and 
ranchers by allowing them to market their world-famous products and 
consumers who deserve to know where their food comes from.
  Any American consumer can look at the tag on their shirt or under the 
hood of their car and know where it was made. But when meats and 
produce move into the market place, their origin often becomes a 
mystery. Considering the importance of food to our health and safety, 
the growth of our children, and the livelihood of our farmers and 
ranchers, we should have as much information about the origin of our 
food as possible.
  When I was president of the Montana Senate in 2005, I helped lead the 
fight to pass and implement country of origin labeling because Congress 
had failed to act. In Montana we are particularly proud of the quality 
of our agricultural products, and of the people who raise them. Our 
clean air and water, well preserved natural environment, and modern 
agricultural practices make consumers want to buy Montana meats, fruits 
and vegetables. Our State government has given consumers the 
information and the choice to purchase American raised products through 
country of origin labeling.
  As a dry land farmer from Big Sandy, Montana I know how challenging 
it is to be successful in agriculture. American farmers and ranchers 
need all the tools they can get. We no longer compete only with our 
local neighbors. We compete internationally with South America, Asia, 
Australia and New Zealand. Country of origin labeling adds value in the 
market place that was already added by being grown on American farms 
and ranches.
  American consumers will make choices to support our domestic industry 
and sometimes pay a premium to know that their food comes from the 
United States. They support American agriculture with its high-quality 
standards, where money made stays in our rural communities and in the 
hands of American farmers and ranchers instead of going overseas. The 
benefits of country of origin labeling are great, the costs are little 
and consumers have demanded it. Congress needs to take the next step 
and implement the program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Ensign)
  S. 405. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under part A of 
title I may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to 
introduce legislation to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards 
instructional services to teach our Nation's neediest students.
  Title I provides assistance to almost every school district in the 
country to serve children attending schools with high numbers of low-
income students, from preschool to high school.
  Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds 
to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal 
Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional 
services should entail.
  This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as 
States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability 
standards established under ``No Child Left Behind.''
  While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet 
these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to 
how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
  I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this 
process as clear to States as possible.
  During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to 
get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate 
version of the bill.
  Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was 
stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title 
I funds.
  In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to 
submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
  What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent 
of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based 
on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what 
constitutes administrative expenditures.''
  Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much 
of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.
  Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout 
the states, the accounting office created their own definition by 
compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report.
  The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--
to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the 
definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions 
to their report.
  The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of 
universal definitions in the Title I program: The lack of Federal 
guidance on effective uses of Title I funds and the government's 
inability to accurately measure

[[Page 2440]]

whether the academic needs of low-income students are being met.
  This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states 
to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance 
needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
  Current law on Title I is much too vague.
  It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds 
received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that 
would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from 
non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in 
programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''
  Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the 
``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.
  The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document 
that explains how Title I funds can be used.
  Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically 
prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. 
payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to 
reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental 
involvement'' meeting.
  I believe we should give the Department, States and districts a 
clearer guidance in law.
  This legislation would: Define Title I direct and indirect 
instructional services. Set a standard for the amount of Title I funds 
that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives 
of this program. Ensure that the majority of Title I funds are used to 
improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational 
agency may use not more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received . . 
. for indirect instructional services.''
  By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on 
administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted 
from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic 
services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the 
remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I 
distribution.
  Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can 
apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.
  Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and 
other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening 
and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. 
Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, 
and other instructional equipment. Developing and administering 
curriculum, educational materials and assessments.
  Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of 
Title I expenditures are: Business services relating to administering 
the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, 
janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of 
utility costs. Buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at 
conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional 
development.
  My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: first, I believe 
that states must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental 
purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. 
Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without 
providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional 
service.
  I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for 
not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are 
simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.
  If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest 
children, federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.
  It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is 
only about 9 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary 
education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for 
public schools.
  That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on 
academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping 
disadvantaged children achieve.
  Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for 
expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services 
and retain the majority of federal funds to improve academic 
achievement.
  It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of 
education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that 
important goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask for unanimous 
consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement 
in the record.
  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. 405

       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 ``Title I Integrity Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received 
     under this part only for direct instructional services and 
     indirect instructional services.
       ``(2) Limitation on indirect instructional services.--A 
     local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of 
     funds received under this part for indirect instructional 
     services.
       ``(b) Instructional Services.--
       ``(1) Direct instructional services.--In this section, the 
     term direct instructional services' means--
       ``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and 
     corrective actions to improve student achievement;
       ``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the 
     normal school day and year, including during summer school;
       ``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional 
     personnel, including providing teachers and instructional 
     personnel with employee benefits;
       ``(D) the provision of instructional services to 
     prekindergarten children to prepare such children for the 
     transition to kindergarten;
       ``(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as 
     books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment, 
     and wiring to support instructional equipment;
       ``(F) the development and administration of curricula, 
     educational materials, and assessments;
       ``(G) the transportation of students to assist the students 
     in improving academic achievement;
       ``(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including 
     providing title I coordinators with employee benefits; and
       ``(I) the provision of professional development for 
     teachers and other instructional personnel.
       ``(2) Indirect instructional services.--In this section, 
     the term indirect instructional services' includes--
       ``(A) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, 
     gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the 
     payment of utility costs;
       ``(B) the payment of travel and attendance costs at 
     conferences or other meetings;
       ``(C) the payment of legal services;
       ``(D) the payment of business services, including payroll, 
     purchasing, accounting, and data processing costs; and
       ``(E) any other services determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inhofe, 
        Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 408. A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and provide 
opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public land; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting 
Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this 
piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting 
heritage is passed on to future generations. This legislation preserves 
and protects the rights and access to Federal public lands that are 
vitally important to the sportsmen and women of America.
  I have been an avid outdoor sportsman for the better part of my adult 
life

[[Page 2441]]

and I must say that the times I have spent hunting with my son or with 
friends have been some of the best times of my life. Recreational 
hunting provides numerous opportunities to spend time and share 
valuable experiences of some of life's lessons with children, family 
and friends.
  It is hard to put a price tag on seeing the joy and excitement in a 
child's eyes during their first hunting experience. It is one of the 
reasons that I decided to introduce this legislation. I believe that 
recreational hunting should be an activity that everyone has the 
opportunity to experience.
  One thing that all sportsmen and women have in common is that they 
are also conservationists. I, like my fellow hunters, understand that 
without wildlife conservation our Nation's rich hunting heritage will 
end with this generation. Sportsmen and women have continued to support 
sound wildlife management and conservation practices since the time of 
President Theodore Roosevelt who many consider to be the father of the 
conservation movement. Each year millions of hunters purchase licenses, 
permits, and stamps that contribute a significant amount of money to 
wildlife conservation. These hunters also contribute billions of 
dollars to the U.S. economy from other hunting related activities.
  Hunting is a rural development activity. It is quite understandable 
how hunting provides an important supplement to the income of many 
farmers and ranchers, and even though this legislation pertains to 
Federal public lands many people overlook the related rural job 
opportunities that are created by hunting. These include guiding and 
increased hotel and restaurant activity to name just a few. As our 
rural population decreases and our urban/suburban increases, hunting is 
an activity that allows many families to stay connected to the land and 
in so doing; it creates economic activity for our rural areas.
  Recognizing hunters for their role in conservation efforts throughout 
the U.S. is very important. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act not 
only recognizes hunters for their conservation efforts but it also 
requires that Federal public land and water are open to access and use 
for recreational hunting when and where hunting is appropriate. It is 
important to note that this bill does not open all Federal public land 
to hunting.
  Another crucial piece of this legislation is that it creates a policy 
that requires Federal government agencies to manage Federal public land 
under their jurisdiction in a manner that supports, promotes, and 
enhances recreational hunting opportunities.
  As I mentioned before, sportsmen and women have contributed greatly 
to wildlife conservation over the years and it is important that 
Congress acknowledge this contribution by ensuring that the amount of 
Federal public land open to recreational hunting does not decrease. 
That is why this legislation requires that actions related to the 
management of Federal public lands should result in a ``no net loss'' 
of land area available for recreational hunting.
  It is vitally important that we, as Members of the Senate, do all we 
can to protect and preserve the tradition of hunting so that future 
generations will be able to experience this great outdoor recreational 
activity. I believe that the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 
2007'' meets these goals.
  I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join 
me in supporting and preserving our Nation's rich heritage of hunting 
by supporting 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. 408

       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 ``Hunting Heritage Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) recreational hunting is an important and traditional 
     recreational activity in which 13,000,000 people in the 
     United States 16 years of age and older participate;
       (2) hunters have been and continue to be among the foremost 
     supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation 
     practices in the United States;
       (3) persons who hunt and organizations relating to hunting 
     provide direct assistance to wildlife managers and 
     enforcement officers of the Federal Government and State and 
     local governments;
       (4) purchases of hunting licenses, permits, and stamps and 
     excise taxes on goods used by hunters have generated billions 
     of dollars for wildlife conservation, research, and 
     management;
       (5) recreational hunting is an essential component of 
     effective wildlife management by--
       (A) reducing conflicts between people and wildlife; and
       (B) providing incentives for the conservation of--
       (i) wildlife; and
       (ii) habitats and ecosystems on which wildlife depend;
       (6) each State has established at least 1 agency staffed by 
     professionally trained wildlife management personnel that has 
     legal authority to manage the wildlife in the State; and
       (7) recreational hunting is an environmentally acceptable 
     activity that occurs, and can be provided for, on Federal 
     public land without adverse effects on other uses of the 
     land.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agency head.--The term ``agency head'' means the head 
     of any Federal agency that has authority to manage a natural 
     resource or Federal public land on which a natural resource 
     depends.
       (2) Federal public land.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Federal public land'' means any 
     land or water that is--
       (i) publicly accessible;
       (ii) owned by the United States; and
       (iii) managed by an executive agency for purposes that 
     include the conservation of natural resources.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal public land'' does not 
     include any land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or member of an Indian tribe.
       (3) Hunting.--The term ``hunting'' means the lawful--
       (A) pursuit, trapping, shooting, capture, collection, or 
     killing of wildlife; or
       (B) attempt to pursue, trap, shoot, capture, collect, or 
     kill wildlife.

     SEC. 4. RECREATIONAL HUNTING.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, Federal 
     public land shall be open to access and use for recreational 
     hunting except as limited by--
       (1) the agency head with jurisdiction over the Federal 
     public land--
       (A) for reasons of national security;
       (B) for reasons of public safety; or
       (C) for any other reasons for closure authorized by 
     applicable Federal law; and
       (2) any law (including regulations) of the State in which 
     the Federal public land is located that is applicable to 
     recreational hunting.
       (b) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), to the 
     extent authorized under State law (including regulations), 
     and in accordance with applicable Federal law (including 
     regulations), each agency head shall manage Federal public 
     land under the jurisdiction of the agency head in a manner 
     that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting 
     opportunities.
       (c) No Net Loss.--
       (1) In general.--Federal public land management decisions 
     and actions should, to the maximum extent practicable, result 
     in no net loss of land area available for hunting 
     opportunities on Federal public land.
       (2) Annual report.--Not later than October 1 of each year, 
     each agency head with authority to manage Federal public land 
     on which recreational hunting occurs shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a report that 
     describes--
       (A)(i) any Federal public land administered by the agency 
     head that was closed to recreational hunting at any time 
     during the preceding year; and
       (ii) the reason for the closure; and
       (B) areas administered by the agency head that were opened 
     to recreational hunting to compensate for the closure of the 
     areas described in subparagraph (A)(i).
       (3) Closures of 5,000 or more acres.--The withdrawal, 
     change of classification, or change of management status that 
     effectively closes 5,000 or more acres of Federal public land 
     to access or use for recreational hunting shall take effect 
     only if, before the date of withdrawal or change, the agency 
     head that has jurisdiction over the Federal public land 
     submits to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives written 
     notice of the withdrawal or change.

[[Page 2442]]

       (d) Areas Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act compels the 
     opening to recreational hunting of national parks or national 
     monuments under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (e) No Priority.--Nothing in this Act requires a Federal 
     agency to give preference to hunting over other uses of 
     Federal public land or over land or water management 
     priorities established by Federal law.
       (f) Authority of the States.--
       (1) Savings.--Nothing in this Act affects the authority, 
     jurisdiction, or responsibility of a State to manage, 
     control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State law 
     (including regulations) on land or water in the State, 
     including Federal public land.
       (2) Federal licenses.--Nothing in this Act authorizes an 
     agency head to require a license or permit to hunt, fish, or 
     trap on land or water in a State, including on Federal public 
     land in the State.
       (3) State right of action.--
       (A) In general.--Any State aggrieved by the failure of an 
     agency head or employee to comply with this Act may bring a 
     civil action in the United States District Court for the 
     district in which the failure occurs for a permanent 
     injunction.
       (B) Preliminary injunction.--If the district court 
     determines, based on the facts, that a preliminary injunction 
     is appropriate, the district court may grant a preliminary 
     injunction.
       (C) Court costs.--If the district court issues an 
     injunction under this paragraph or otherwise finds in favor 
     of the State, the district court shall award to the State any 
     reasonable costs of bringing the civil action (including an 
     attorney's fee).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 409. A bill to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
interests in the State of North Dakota; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water 
Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota 
with water supply and treatment projects.
  Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no 
water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the 
communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before 
Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of 
schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles 
upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply 
challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, 
leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the 
State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to 
ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan 
faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because 
changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects 
of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that 
restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the 
surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in 
maintaining a safe, reliable water supply.
  Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and 
construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different 
States including Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana. The State of North 
Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as 
difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these 
challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers's operations 
of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that 
the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs.
  The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important 
supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water-
related infrastructure repairs. Under the act, communities could use 
the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, 
environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. 
Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 
percent non-Federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the 
financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water 
rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the 
construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources 
Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for 
communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water 
Resources Act. It is my hope that this authorization will be included 
as part of the Water Resources Development Act.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an 
important issue in North Dakota.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 410. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
to direct the Secretary of the Army to provide assistance to design and 
construct a project to provide a continued safe and reliable municipal 
water supply system for Devils Lake, North Dakota; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal 
water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is 
very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents 
of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from 
the rising flood waters of Devils Lake.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been 
plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils 
Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen more than 25 feet, consuming land, 
destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of 
this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of 
losing its water supply. Currently, 6 miles or approximately one-third 
of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the 
rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line 
includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off 
discharges.
  All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow 
through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between 
the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the 
transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is 
under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause 
significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would 
be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, 
and the city would be left without a water supply.
  The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both 
to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its 
current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard. The city has 
worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in 
identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising 
flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its 
current and future needs.
  The bill will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply 
system for the city. Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government 
has a responsibility to address the unintended consequences of this 
flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the 
Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the 
residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. It is 
my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water 
Resources Development Act.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an 
important issue for the city of Devils Lake.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH:
  S. 411. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
credit rate parity for all renewable resources under the electricity 
production credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will bring parity to all renewable energy facilities that qualify for 
the production tax credit under section 45 of the Internal Revenue 
Code.
  I have been a long-time supporter of the production tax credit. There 
are significant wind facilities in Oregon,

[[Page 2443]]

where we have over 335 megawatts of installed wind capacity. These 
facilities provide clean energy as well as important revenues to 
farmers and rural counties in Eastern Oregon.
  Currently, however, some eligible renewable facilities get only half 
the per-kilowatt credit that other types of facilities receive. My goal 
here is to level the playing field for all eligible renewables without 
reducing the credit any facility currently receives. Therefore, my bill 
provides that all eligible facilities would receive the higher credit 
amount for each kilowatt of electricity produced.
  I believe that this bill will help to provide the necessary 
incentives to diversify our renewable energy resources. It will also 
eliminate the competitive disadvantage that certain types of renewables 
currently face. Utilities have little incentive to select renewables 
that qualify for the lower credit rate when buying green power. The 
eligible facilities that receive the lower rate include open-loop 
biomass, incremental hydropower, and small irrigation systems, all of 
which are important energy sources that could help meet the growing 
demand for electricity in my State of Oregon and in many other parts of 
the country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing the credit rate for 
eligible renewables, and fostering the development and deployment of 
these important facilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 412. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the 
``Lane Evans Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office at 2633 11th Street in 
Rock Island, IL, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.''
  For over 20 years, Lane Evans has been my closest friend in the 
Illinois congressional delegation. We came to the House of 
Representatives together and he proved to be an indomitable force. Time 
and again, Lane Evans showed extraordinary political courage fighting 
for the values that brought him to public service. But his greatest 
show of courage has been over the last 10 years as he battled 
Parkinson's disease and those who tried to exploit his physical 
weakness. His dignity and perseverance in the face of this relentless 
and cruel disease is an inspiration to everyone who knows Lane Evans.
  I am pleased to offer this legislation to permanently and publicly 
recognize Lane Evans and his service to his congressional district, our 
State of Illinois, and the entire United States by naming the Rock 
Island Post Office in his honor. It would be a most appropriate way for 
us to express our appreciation to Congressman Evans and to commemorate 
his public life and work.
  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. 412

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

     SECTION 1. LANE EVANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Lane Evans Post Office 
     Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI:
  S. 414. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and 
the Federal Meat Inspection Act to require that food that contains 
product from a cloned animal be labeled accordingly, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned 
animal.
  I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products 
from cloned animals. No one needs cloned milk and meat. Most Americans 
actively oppose it.
  But the Food and Drug Administration has decided that food from 
cloned animals is safe to eat. And, since they have decided this is 
``safe,'' they will not require that it be labeled as coming from a 
cloned animal.
  The American people don't want this. Gallup Polls report over 65 
percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals and the Pew 
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage 
say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk.
  The National Academies of Science reported that so far, studies show 
no problems with food from cloned animals but they also admit that this 
is brand new science. What about the possibility of unintended 
consequences a few years from now? They cautioned the Federal 
Government to monitor for potential health effects and urged diligent 
post-market surveillance.
  So even if we agreed the science appears safe, we need to follow it 
closely. But, once the FDA determines this is safe they said they will 
allow the food to enter the market unidentified, unlabeled, unbeknownst 
to all of us and completely indistinguishable from all other food. We 
won't be able to tell which foods were made the good old fashioned way 
and which came from a cloned animal
  Must we be compelled to eat anything a scientist can produce in the 
laboratory? Just because they can make it, should Americans be required 
to eat it? Of course not. The public deserves to know if their food 
comes from a cloned animal.
  To help the American public make an informed decision on this, today 
I will introduce a bill to require all food that comes from a cloned 
animal to be labeled. This legislation will require the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that 
comes from a cloned animal or their offspring. We need to know and we 
must be able to decide for ourselves. And I mean all food--not just the 
packages we buy in the supermarket but the meals we choose from a menu.
  The FDA has a responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. 
Though many aspects of food safety are beyond their control--this is 
not. We do not know enough about the long term effects of introducing 
cloned animals, or their offspring, into our food supply to guarantee 
this is safe. Is this decision to allow cloned animals into our food 
supply influenced by factors other than keeping the public safe? Are 
they allowing an eager industry to force a questionably scientific 
process on an unknowing public?
  We simply don't have the same trust in the FDA as we once had. 
Recently the Wall Street Journal found that over half of Americans feel 
the FDA does not do a good job keeping our drug supply safe. We want to 
trust them with the safety of our food supply but what if they are 
wrong?
  What if the FDA has made a mistake and finds out a few years from now 
that there was a problem with this. If we do not keep track of it from 
the very beginning--by clear and dependable labeling--we could 
contaminate our entire food supply. If the food is not properly labeled 
we can't remove it from the shelves like we did with problematic drugs 
such as Vioxx and Celebrex. We must be proactive. We must label these 
foods.
  I reject the notion that the FDA or anyone else should force 
Americans to accept and consume any product that can be manufactured in 
a lab--no matter how offensive the product is. We need to insist that 
the FDA treat the public fairly. If cloned food is safe, let it onto 
the market, but give consumers the information they need to avoid these 
products. We need to let Americans speak with their dollars and choose 
the food they have confidence is safe.

                          ____________________