[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 34257-34270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BARRASSO:
  S. 2468. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture (acting 
through the Chief of the Forest Service) to enter into a cooperative 
agreement with the State of Wyoming to allow the State of Wyoming to 
conduct certain forest and watershed restoration services, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I am proud to introduce the Wyoming Forest and 
Watershed Restoration Act of 2007. This legislation authorizes 
cooperative action between the U.S. Forest Service and the State of 
Wyoming to complete forest health projects on private, State and 
Federal lands.
  Almost half of Wyoming's lands are controlled by Federal agencies. We 
have over 9 million acres of National Forest lands in Wyoming, 
including seven National Forests. Our State has a long history of 
forestry, grazing and multiple use of public lands. Recreation and 
tourism on our public lands is a pillar of our economy. The people of 
Wyoming are stewards of our public lands and our State depends on the 
public lands for our future.
  It is my goal to enact common-sense policies that address the needs 
of Wyoming and sustainable management of our Federal lands. Our 
forests, like those of all States across the West, are facing 
management challenges. We have an opportunity to set policies that will 
encourage forest health.
  We face an urgent problem with bark beetle infestation. Forests 
between Interstate 70 in Colorado and Interstate 80 in Wyoming are 
being killed by these beetles. We have thousands upon thousands of 
acres that are dying. On the Medicine-Bow Forest, for instance, over 
75,000 acres of trees are infected by bark beetles. Forest Service 
analysis shows the epidemic could grow to 350,000 acres and cover 
approximately \1/3\ of the forest in the next few years.
  We can stem the spread of this infestation and save our forests, with 
quick action on thousands of acres. That kind of response will take 
coordinated management among all partners private, State, and Federal. 
Preventing forest fires, addressing watershed health and conserving 
wildlife habitat require the same ``big picture'' thinking. We have to 
address threats like bark beetles by taking on forest health projects 
on a landscape level.
  Resource issues don't stop at fencelines, and neither should our 
policy.
  The Wyoming Forest and Watershed Restoration Act of 2007 would set in 
place a comprehensive management policy. This act would allow the State 
of Wyoming to go forward with forest health projects as agreed to by 
the Forest Service. The agencies can cooperatively pursue projects that 
address our landscape needs. Private, State, and Federal lands can get 
the on-the-ground management they desperately need.
  I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. It is of great 
importance to the people of Wyoming. I hope my colleagues will proceed 
quickly with its passage to enhance our State's response to the growing 
forest health problems. The people of Wyoming demand on-the-ground 
results. This legislation can deliver those results. I hope we can pass 
it expediently.
  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. 2468

       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 ``Wyoming Forest and Watershed 
     Restoration Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FOREST AND WATERSHED RESTORATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture (acting through the Chief of the Forest 
     Service), with respect to National Forest System land.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Wyoming.
       (b) Cooperative Agreement.--
       (1) Authority of secretary.--Until September 30, 2017, in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2), (3), and (6), the Secretary 
     may enter into a cooperative agreement or contract (including 
     a sole source contract) with the State to allow the State 
     forester of the State to conduct forest and watershed 
     restoration services on land that is--
       (A) under the jurisdiction of the Secretary; and
       (B) located in the State.
       (2) Project basis.--Each restoration service that is the 
     subject of a cooperative agreement or contract described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) carried out on a project-to-project basis; or
       (B) made ready to be carried out under any existing 
     authority of the Secretary.
       (3) Authorized services.--In carrying out services in 
     accordance with a cooperative agreement or contract entered 
     into between the Secretary and the State under paragraph (1), 
     the State shall conduct certain appropriate services, 
     including--
       (A) the treatment of insect-infected trees;
       (B) the reduction of hazardous fuels; and
       (C) any other activity designed to restore or improve a 
     forest or watershed (including any fish or wildlife habitat), 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) State as agent.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (6), a 
     cooperative agreement or contract entered into by the 
     Secretary and the State under paragraph (1) may allow the 
     State forester of the State to serve as an agent of the 
     Forest Service in carrying out any service described in 
     paragraph (3).
       (B) Authority to subcontract.--In accordance with the laws 
     of the State, in carrying out any authorized service 
     described in paragraph (3), the State forester of the State 
     may enter into a subcontract with any other entity to carry 
     out the services of the State forester of the State.
       (5) Applicability of national forest management act of 
     1976.--Subsections (d) and (g) of section 14 of the National 
     Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) shall not 
     apply to any service performed by the State forester of the 
     State in accordance with a cooperative agreement or contract 
     entered into by the Secretary and the State under paragraph 
     (1).
       (6) Retention of certain responsibilities.--With respect to 
     any authorized service described in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary, through a cooperative agreement or contract 
     entered into by the Secretary and the State under paragraph 
     (1), shall not allow the State to make any decision required 
     to be made under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 2471. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
enforcement of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 
Rights Act of 1994, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, more 
than 1.5 million of our servicemen and women have been sent to Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and other nations. We have mobilized more than 630,000 
members of the National Guard and Reserves, including 92,000 who are on 
active duty right now.
  These service men and women have courageously defended our country 
overseas, but tens of thousands of them have come home to find that 
they have lost their employment benefits or even their jobs, and the 
Government has failed to defend their rights.
  Today, Senator Daniel Akaka and I are introducing legislation to 
guarantee that veterans won't have to wait years for the Government to 
act to restore their benefits or return to work.
  Thirteen years ago, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, specifically to protect our 
servicemembers when they return home. We understood that, to maintain 
strong focus and a strong National Guard and Reserves, servicemembers 
needed confidence that they could return to their civilian jobs when 
they came home from their tours of duty. That legislation was a clear 
promise that the Federal Government would step in and defend 
servicemembers who were wrongly denied their jobs or benefits. We 
pledged that the Department of Labor would investigate violations of 
the act, and that if employers refused to follow the law, the Attorney 
General would take employers to court to protect our servicemembers' 
rights.
  Today, however, the administration has clearly broken that promise to 
enforce the law and get our veterans back to work.

[[Page 34258]]

  Last month, during a Senate Committee hearing, I released a 
Department of Defense survey showing that for tens of thousands of 
veterans, their service to our country has cost them the salary they 
deserve, their health care, their pensions, or even their jobs. Among 
members of the Reserves and National Guard, nearly 11,000 were denied 
prompt reemployment. More than 22,000 lost seniority and rightful pay. 
Nearly 20,000 had their pensions reduced. More than 15,000 did not 
receive the training they needed to resume their former jobs. Nearly 
11,000 did not get their health insurance back.
  The problem is that employers aren't following the law, and Federal 
agencies aren't effectively enforcing it. Mr. President, 38 percent of 
servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor to defend their rights 
did not receive a prompt response. Servicemembers are forced to wait 
months or years even to find out whether the Government will agree to 
represent them and defend their rights. One veteran waited 7 years 
before the Department of Labor told him whether it would take his case 
to court. No veteran can afford to wait seven months to return to work 
or have his health insurance reinstated, let alone wait 7 years.
  With these unbelievable delays, it is not surprising that 44 percent 
of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor for help said that 
they were dissatisfied with the assistance they received. When 
servicemen and women hear about these delays, they ask themselves, 
``Why should I even bother to ask for help.''
  In fact, the Pentagon tells us that 77 percent of servicemembers 
whose rights are violated don't contact anyone to defend their rights. 
They simply give up. Nearly half of them say that they have no 
confidence that the Government will resolve their problems, or that it 
is just not worth the effort.
  Even worse, a quarter of them don't even know where they can go for 
help. It is beyond dispute that the administration has broken its 
promise to help them.
  Our veterans deserve better than this. They deserve to know that 
their Government is working as quickly as possible to get them back to 
work and restore their benefits.
  The current law needs reform as well. It makes no sense to have four 
different agencies tracking the problems of our servicemembers in four 
different ways. We also need to know whether disabled veterans are 
being properly assisted in making their own difficult transition back 
to work.
  It is time for the administration to keep its promise, and end the 
long delays for veterans who need help in defending their rights. The 
bill that Senator Akaka and I are introducing imposes timely and 
reasonable deadlines on Federal agencies to investigate complaints, to 
attempt to resolve them, and, if necessary, to refer them for 
litigation.
  The legislation also makes the Federal enforcement of the law more 
transparent and responsive to the needs of veterans. It assures 
veterans that they won't have to wait years for an answer about whether 
they will receive the help they deserve.
  By imposing timely deadlines on the Federal agencies, we are also 
stepping up the pressure on employers that violate the rights of our 
brave soldiers. With these new deadlines, employers won't be able to 
drag their heels as the Department of Labor spends months or years 
investigating violations. They will know that they have to settle each 
veteran's case quickly and fairly, or else face the U.S. Government in 
court.
  The legislation also implements a number of reforms recommended by 
the Government Accountability Office--reforms that have received 
bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. In particular, our 
bill requires agencies to gather and report information on these cases 
in a uniform manner, so that we can understand trends and better 
address the needs of each servicemember. Agencies will also be required 
to report on cases involving veterans with disabilities, so that we 
have accurate information on the reemployment problems of our wounded 
soldiers.
  Enacting this legislation alone obviously won't end the job 
discrimination that too many servicemembers face when they come home. 
But it will certainly improve the assistance they receive in obtaining 
the help they have earned and deserve.
  Our legislation has the support of the Nation's largest veterans' 
organization, the American Legion, which emphasizes that the 
``enforcement of veterans' employment and reemployment rights . . . can 
only be achieved through aggressive oversight and timely 
investigation.'' This legislation, the American Legion says, will 
``strengthen veterans' employment and reemployment rights'' by imposing 
``timely, realistic deadlines on Federal agencies to process'' their 
claims. We are proud to have the American Legion's support for this 
legislation.
  We know we can never truly repay our veterans for their immense 
sacrifices. They have fought hard for our country, and it is up to us 
to fight just as hard for them when they return home to the heroes' 
welcome they so justly deserve. An important part of that welcome is 
keeping the promise that we made to them to protect their employment 
rights when they return. That is what this legislation seeks to do, and 
I urge my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend 
and distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in 
introducing S. 2471, the proposed USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 
2007. This measure is intended to make substantial improvements in the 
manner in which claims made under the Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994--USERRA--are processed and to help 
ensure that individuals' complaints are addressed in a prompt and 
efficient manner.
  Our troops are returning home from battle, and many of them seek to 
return to the jobs that they held prior to their military service, 
particularly those serving in Guard and Reserve units. USERRA, which is 
set forth in chapter 43 of title 38, U.S. Code, provides these 
servicemembers with certain protections. USERRA also sets out certain 
responsibilities for employers, including to reemploy returning 
veterans in their previous jobs.
  As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I held two 
hearings earlier this year on issues relating to veterans' employment, 
including one focusing exclusively on the pilot project for processing 
USERRA claims in the Federal sector and the jurisdictional questions 
involving the Department of Labor and the Office of Special Counsel. I 
must admit to being particularly upset with the volume of USERRA claims 
related to Federal service. It is simply wrong that individuals who 
were sent to war by their Government should, upon their return, be put 
in the position of having to do battle with that same Government in 
order to regain their jobs and benefits.
  Out of those hearings, and an oversight hearing held by the Senate 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, chaired by Senator 
Kennedy, we have learned a great deal about the manner in which USERRA 
claims are investigated, resolved, or referred to other appropriate 
entities for enforcement actions. By and large, the process is seamless 
and frequently involves employer education in terms of helping them 
understand their obligations under the law. Still too often, many 
claims are quite complicated and involve what are sometimes called 
``escalator claims,'' where an individual is seeking to be re-instated 
in a position with quite complicated benefits, seniority, health care 
and fiduciary issues. I believe that anytime an individual is denied 
their USERRA rights is one time too many. However, I understand that 
the confusion and misunderstanding that can exist for the employer--
particularly a small employer or one who may only have one employee who 
is a member of the Guard or reserve--can be frustrating.
  The legislation we are introducing today seeks to establish 
reasonable time frames for the USERRA process. When veterans turn to 
the government to protect their employment rights,

[[Page 34259]]

they deserve solutions, not delays. It is my hope that this legislation 
will assist the federal government in protecting the employment rights 
of veterans.
  Our legislation would, in brief, require those filing complaints to 
be notified within 5 days of the establishment of a claim, require that 
complaints be investigated and a decision made with respect to the need 
for further referral within 90 days, and require prompt referral to 
other agencies. The Government Accountability Office would be required 
to submit quarterly reports on the processing of claims. Finally, data 
collected by the Employers' Support of the Guard and Reserve, a 
voluntary organization within the Department of Defense, would be 
required to be included in the Secretary of Labor's annual report on 
USERRA. With respect to this ESRG reporting requirement, it should be 
noted that this provision has already passed both bodies in the context 
of the pending conference agreement on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, and it is included here in the 
event that legislation is not enacted.
  I stress that our goal is to improve the current process. We want in 
no way to place strictures on the program that might result in less 
than satisfactory consideration and pursuit of claims. I intend to 
pursue the concerns of all of those involved in these claims--the 
Departments of Labor, Defense, and Justice, the Office of Personnel 
Management and the Office of the Special Counsel--through the 
legislative process in the next session. Should the need for 
refinements in the measure as it is introduced today become apparent, 
they will be carefully considered. I know that the Senator from 
Massachusetts will join me in that endeavor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 2472. A bill to amend the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague 
Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS 
Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently 
observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, 
solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed 
already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living 
with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our 
time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free 
generation.
  In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/
AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, 
therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the 
opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream 
that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the 
world.
  Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 
420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 
percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those 
on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, 
PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected 
children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die 
before their fifth.
  Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected 
with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during 
pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. 
Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no 
medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent 
chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and 
childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother 
at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days 
of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. 
Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care 
in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child 
transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to 
UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 
percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have 
access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.
  Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of 
HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT 
services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack 
of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization 
of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home 
births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and 
treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to 
reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers 
trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to 
prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, 
and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS 
medications.
  The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is 
that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number 
of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for 
the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to 
UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a 
comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV 
infection in women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV 
infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to 
their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-
infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding 
family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, 
more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections 
averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. 
Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub-
Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV-
positive births.
  For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point 
for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why 
it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care 
and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and 
strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we 
can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and 
families.
  The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS 
Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new 
pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment 
of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation 
will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the 
infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 
years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR 
should be children.
  The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent 
mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 
80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, 
with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication 
for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
  Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy 
to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and 
treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as 
soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies 
of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve 
outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up 
and continuity of care.
  Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of 
Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective 
review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide 
recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for

[[Page 34260]]

scale-up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under 
PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The 
Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the 
coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing 
recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, 
and is made public.
  To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within 
PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific 
activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which 
dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for 
abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more 
effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly 
abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not 
draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is 
my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes 
PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.
  Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on 
those receiving services without specifying how much money any given 
country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I 
believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of 
Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary 
budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique 
epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available 
resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of 
program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would 
allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most 
needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.
  The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just 
recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city 
is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV-
infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of 
Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time 
high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.
  As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against 
it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's 
children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children 
receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT 
services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  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. 2472

       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 ``Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS 
     Prevention and Treatment Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 2 of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (26 U.S.C. 7601) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) In 2007, the rate at which children accessed 
     treatment failed to keep pace with new pediatric infections. 
     While children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV 
     infections, they make up only 9 percent of those receiving 
     treatment under this Act.'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (16) to read as follows:
       ``(16) Basic interventions to prevent new HIV infections 
     and to bring care and treatment to people living with AIDS, 
     such as voluntary counseling and testing, are achieving 
     meaningful results and are cost-effective. The challenge is 
     to expand these interventions to a national basis in a 
     coherent and sustainable manner.''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (20) to read as follows:
       ``(20) With no medical intervention, mothers infected with 
     HIV have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to 
     their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. A simple and 
     effective intervention can significantly reduce mother to 
     child transmission of HIV. A single dose of an anti-
     retroviral drug given once to the mother at the onset of 
     labor, and once to the baby during the first 3 days of life 
     reduces transmission by approximately 50 percent. Other more 
     complex drug regimens can further reduce transmission from 
     mother-to-child. A dramatic expansion of access to prevention 
     of mother-to-child transmission services is critical to 
     preventing thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.''.

     SEC. 3. POLICY PLANNING AND COORDINATION.

       Section 101(b)(3) of the United States Leadership Against 
     HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 
     7611(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(X) A description of the activities that will be 
     conducted to achieve the targets described in paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of section 312(b).''.

     SEC. 4. BILATERAL EFFORTS.

       (a) Assistance to Combat HIV/AIDS.--Section 104A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b-2) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) by amending subparagraph (E) to read as follows:
       ``(E) assistance to--
       ``(i) achieve the target described in section 312(b)(1) of 
     the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, 
     and Malaria Act of 2003; and
       ``(ii) promote infant feeding options for HIV positive 
     mothers that are consistent with the most recent infant 
     feeding recommendations and guidelines supported by the World 
     Health Organization ;'';
       (B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) assistance to achieve the target described in section 
     312(b)(2) of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(2)(C)--
       (A) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) the number of HIV-infected children currently 
     receiving antiretroviral medications in each country under 
     the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, 
     and Malaria Act of 2003.''.
       (b) Assistance to Children and Families.--Subtitle B of 
     Title III of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7651 et 
     seq.) is amended by striking sections 311 and 312 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 311. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Every day, approximately 1,100 children around the 
     world are infected with HIV, the vast majority through 
     mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or 
     delivery or soon after through breast-feeding. Approximately 
     90 percent of these infections occur in Africa.
       ``(2) With no medical intervention, mothers infected with 
     HIV have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to 
     their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. A single dose 
     of an anti-retroviral drug given once to the mother at the 
     onset of labor, and once to the baby during the first 3 days 
     of life reduces transmission by approximately 50 percent.
       ``(3) Providing the full range of interventions, as is the 
     standard of care in the United States, could reduce the rate 
     of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 
     percent.
       ``(4) Global coverage of services to prevent transmission 
     from mother-to-child remains unacceptably low. The Joint 
     United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) reports that 
     fewer than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-
     poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child 
     transmission services.
       ``(5) Prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs 
     provide health benefits for women and children beyond 
     preventing the vertical transmission of HIV. They serve as an 
     entry point for mothers to access treatment for their own HIV 
     infection, allowing them to stay healthy and to care for 
     their children. Efforts to connect and integrate prevention 
     of mother-to-child transmission and HIV care, treatment and 
     prevention programs are crucial to achieving improved 
     outcomes for HIV-affected and HIV-infected women and 
     families.
       ``(6) Access to comprehensive HIV prevention services must 
     be drastically scaled-up among pregnant women infected with 
     HIV and pregnant women not infected with HIV to further 
     protect themselves and their partners against the sexual 
     transmission of HIV/AIDS.
       ``(7) Preventing unintended pregnancy among HIV-infected 
     women is recognized by the World Health Organization and the 
     Office of the United States Global AIDS Coordinator to be an 
     integral component of prevention of mother-to-child 
     transmission programs. To further reduce infection rates, 
     women accessing prevention of mother-to-child transmission 
     services must have access to a range of high-quality family 
     planning and reproductive health care, so they can make 
     informed decisions about future pregnancies and 
     contraception.
       ``(8) In 2007, the rate at which children were accessing 
     treatment failed to keep pace with

[[Page 34261]]

     new pediatric infections. While children account for almost 
     16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 
     percent of those on treatment under this Act.
       ``(9) Of the more than 2,500,000 people who were newly 
     infected with HIV in 2007, more than 420,000 were children.
       ``(10) Without proper care and treatment, half of newly 
     HIV-infected children will die before they reach 2 years of 
     age, and 75 percent will die before 5 years of age.
       ``(11) Because children are not just small adults, 
     providing HIV care and treatment presents special challenges, 
     including--
       ``(A) limited access to reliable HIV testing for the 
     youngest children;
       ``(B) a shortage of providers trained in delivering 
     pediatric care;
       ``(C) weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-
     child transmission and care and treatment programs; and
       ``(D) the need for low-cost pediatric formulations of HIV/
     AIDS medications.

     ``SEC. 312. POLICY AND REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Policy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The United States Government's response 
     to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic should place high priority 
     on--
       ``(A) the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of 
     HIV/AIDS; and
       ``(B) the care and treatment of all children affected by 
     HIV/AIDS, including children orphaned by AIDS.
       ``(2) Collaboration.--The United States Government should 
     work in collaboration with foreign governments, donors, the 
     private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and other key 
     stakeholders.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The comprehensive, 5-year, global 
     strategy required under section 101 shall--
       ``(1) establish a target for prevention of mother-to-child 
     transmission efforts that by 2013, in those countries most 
     affected by HIV--
       ``(A) 80 percent of pregnant women receive HIV counseling 
     and testing; and
       ``(B) all of the pregnant women receiving HIV counseling 
     and testing who test positive for HIV receive anti-retroviral 
     medications for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of 
     HIV;
       ``(2) establish a target requiring that by 2013, children 
     account for at least 15 percent of those receiving treatment 
     under this Act;
       ``(3) integrate prevention, care, and treatment with 
     prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon 
     as feasible and consistent with the national government 
     policies of the foreign countries in which programs under 
     this Act are administered, to improve outcomes for HIV-
     affected women and families and to promote follow-up and 
     continuity of care;
       ``(4) expand programs designed to care for children 
     orphaned by AIDS; and
       ``(5) develop a time line for expanding access to more 
     effective mother-to-child transmission prevention regimens, 
     consistent with the national government policies of the 
     foreign countries in which programs under this Act are 
     administered and the goal of moving towards universal use of 
     such regimens as rapidly as possible.
       ``(c) Application of Requirements.--All strategic planning 
     documents and bilateral funding agreements developed under 
     the authority of the Office of the United States Global AIDS 
     Coordinator, including country operating plans and any 
     subsequent mechanisms through which funding under this Act is 
     obligated, shall be consistent with, and in furtherance of, 
     the requirements under subsection (b).
       ``(d) Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert 
     Panel.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Coordinator of United States 
     Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally (referred 
     to in this section as the `Coordinator') shall establish a 
     panel of experts to be known as the Prevention of Mother to 
     Child Transmission Panel (referred to in this section as the 
     `Panel') to--
       ``(A) provide an objective review of activities to prevent 
     mother-to-child transmission of HIV that receive financial 
     assistance under this Act; and
       ``(B) provide recommendations to the Coordinator and to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress for scale-up of mother-to-
     child transmission prevention services under this Act in 
     order to achieve the target established in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(2) Membership.--The Panel shall be convened and chaired 
     by the Coordinator, who shall serve as a nonvoting member. 
     The Panel shall consist of not more than 15 members 
     (excluding the Coordinator), to be appointed by the 
     Coordinator not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, including--
       ``(A) 2 members from the Department of Health and Human 
     Services with expertise relating to the prevention of mother-
     to-child transmission activities;
       ``(B) 2 members from the United States Agency for 
     International Development with expertise relating to the 
     prevention of mother-to-child transmission activities;
       ``(C) 2 representatives from among health ministers of 
     national governments of foreign countries in which programs 
     under this Act are administered;
       ``(D) 3 members representing organizations implementing 
     prevention of mother-to-child transmission activities under 
     this Act;
       ``(E) 2 health care researchers with expertise relating to 
     global HIV/AIDS activities; and
       ``(F) representatives from among patient advocate groups, 
     health care professionals, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and 
     non-governmental organizations with expertise relating to the 
     prevention of mother-to-child transmission activities, giving 
     priority to individuals in foreign countries in which 
     programs under this Act are administered.
       ``(3) Duties of panel.--The Panel shall--
       ``(A) review activities receiving financial assistance 
     under this Act to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV 
     and assess the effectiveness of current activities in 
     reaching the target described in subsection (b)(1);
       ``(B) review scientific evidence related to the provision 
     of mother-to-child transmission prevention services, 
     including programmatic data and data from clinical trials;
       ``(C) review and assess ways in which the Office of the 
     United States Global AIDS Coordinator and programs funded 
     under this Act collaborate with international and 
     multilateral entities on efforts to prevent mother-to-child 
     transmission of HIV in affected countries;
       ``(D) identify barriers and challenges to increasing access 
     to mother-to-child transmission prevention services and 
     evaluate potential mechanisms to alleviate those barriers and 
     challenges;
       ``(E) identify the extent to which stigma has hindered 
     pregnant women from obtaining HIV counseling and testing or 
     returning for results, and provide recommendations to address 
     such stigma and its effects;
       ``(F) identify opportunities to improve linkages between 
     mother-to-child transmission prevention services and care and 
     treatment programs;
       ``(G) evaluate the adequacy of financial assistance 
     provided under this Act for mother-to-child transmission of 
     HIV prevention services; and
       ``(H) recommend levels of financial assistance and specific 
     activities to facilitate reaching the target described in 
     subsection (b)(1).
       ``(4) Report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 14 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Panel shall submit a report 
     containing a detailed statement of the recommendations, 
     findings, and conclusions of the Panel to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       ``(B) Availability.--The report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made available to the public.
       ``(C) Consideration by coordinator.--The Coordinator 
     shall--
       ``(i) consider any recommendations contained in the report 
     submitted under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) include in the annual report required under section 
     104A(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151b-2(e)) a description of the activities conducted in 
     response to the recommendations made by the Panel and an 
     explanation of any recommendations not implemented at the 
     time of the report.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Panel such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2011 
     to carry out this section.
       ``(6) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate on the date 
     that is 60 days after the date on which the Panel submits the 
     report to Congress under paragraph (4).''.
       (c) Annual Report Elements.--Section 313(b)(2) of the 
     United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
     Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7653(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) coordination and collaboration with governments, 
     donors, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, 
     and other key stakeholders to achieve the target described in 
     section 312(b)(1); and
       ``(F) the number of women offered and receiving the 4 
     components of a comprehensive strategy to prevent mother-to-
     child transmission of HIV, as recommended by the World Health 
     Organization.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2473. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 to provide special reporting and disclosure rules for 
individual account plans and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with 
Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This 
legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a 
small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement 
security of millions of

[[Page 34262]]

Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the 
Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan 
sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees 
that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose 
between.
  The number of people participating in defined contribution plans 
grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of 
their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of 
the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making 
sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which 
plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in 
which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what 
they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that 
they know what their fee levels were.
  This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be 
disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes 
to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights 
what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually 
earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the 
agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent 
annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, 
paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged 
a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with 
under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 
percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market 
fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after 
she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.
  So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said 
they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being 
charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are 
not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers 
pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do 
their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can 
have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.
  The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 
45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for 
his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only 
paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if 
the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 
percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount 
of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than 
$12,000 less.
  AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. 
Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan 
over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have 
$132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the 
amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent 
reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 
0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be 
reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year 
period.
  If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your 
retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would 
understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the 
problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't 
immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies 
under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of 
fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans 
charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is 
that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee 
Disclosure Act is designed to fix.
  My bill would provide participants with easily understandable 
information about the fees that they are paying. This information will 
be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest 
in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.
  In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would 
require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right 
now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required 
to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. 
However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to 
plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about 
business arrangements between service providers to steer participants 
into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict 
of interest.
  To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose 
all fees and relationships between service providers to the people 
selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is 
that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several 
good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns 
and fair fees.
  One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be 
charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in 
account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more 
positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying 
higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on 
returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products 
so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. 
That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully 
understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the 
kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit 
plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.
  The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more 
confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is 
especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are 
increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, 
their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).
  Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to 
participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to 
make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know 
they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, 
they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are 
supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their options are 
good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.
  This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers 
with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have 
been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every 
American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing 
this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this 
issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also 
intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed 
regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an 
obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to 
develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly 
help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not 
opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to cosponsor this measure.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the 
hidden fees associated with 401(k) plans, an important issue affecting 
the retirement security of millions of Americans. These fees, currently 
not disclosed to plan participants, can have a drastic effect on one's 
retirement savings.
  More and more Americans are relying on defined contribution plans, 
such as 401(k) plans, to provide their retirement income. Although 
these plans have only been in existence since the 1980s, they now cover 
over 50 million people and exceed $2.5 trillion in total assets. Of 
those private sector workers with any type of retirement benefit; two 
thirds have only their 401(k) savings to secure their financial 
wellbeing in retirement.

[[Page 34263]]

  Although 401(k)s have become the primary pension fund for most 
Americans, there are few requirements for fee disclosure to fund 
managers, and there are absolutely no regulations requiring that plan 
participants be notified about how much they are paying in fees. Most 
fees are either absent or obscured in participant statements and 
investment reports. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that fewer 
than one in five participants know the fees they are paying. 
Unfortunately, this lack of disclosure and lack of understanding can 
have serious consequences on an individual's retirement savings.
  The slightest difference in fees can translate into a staggering 
depletion in savings, greatly affecting one's ability to build a secure 
retirement. According to the Congressional Research Service, families 
who save their retirement funds in high-fee accounts could have one-
quarter less in retirement than those who work for employers who offer 
low-fee accounts. For couples who save over their entire lifetime, the 
CRS study found that an annual fee of 2 percent could reduce savings by 
nearly $130,000, compared to a more reasonable fee of 0.4 percent.
  Today, Senators Harkin and I are introducing the Defined Contribution 
Fee Disclosure Act of 2007. We believe consumers have the right to 
clearly know how much products and services are costing them. Our bill 
will help shed some light on these fees by requiring complete 
transparency to both employers and participants. This will allow 
employers to negotiate with pension fund managers, in order to get the 
lowest possible fees for their employees. Participants will be able to 
make informed choices between investment options and potentially 
increase their retirement savings by thousands of dollars. Ultimately, 
this legislation will help lower costs for everyone by fostering 
competition among pension managers.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 2475. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1977 to provide an exception for certain States with respect to 
the distribution of amounts by the Secretary of the Interior from the 
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to 
allow seven States to more aggressively address the health and safety 
issues that threaten the citizens in their State, and do so 
immediately. I commend my fellow Kansas colleague, Congresswoman Nancy 
Boyda, for introducing similar legislation in the House.
  Last December, Congress passed amendments to the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 
2006 to extend the Abandoned Mines Land Trust Fund for 15 additional 
years. These amendments established a new distribution formula that 
works through a 4 year,program that phases in funding. Unfortunately, 
there are currently seven States that do not meet the active mining 
threshold to meet the minimum funding threshold. Today, I offer 
legislation that would allow ``minimum program states'' like Kansas to 
receive their full funding levels of $3 million starting in the fiscal 
year 2008, instead of requiring the minimum States to follow the 
percentage distribution formula. This legislation will assist several 
other States including Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, and 
Maryland. With this funding, States can begin to protect their 
residents from the dangers of abandoned mines sooner rather than later.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 2478. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, New Hampshire, as 
the ``Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office''; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, on behalf of Hampstead, NH, middle school 
students, school board officials, board of selectmen, and residents, I 
rise to honor a fallen hero, U.S. Army Ranger CAPT Jonathan David 
Grassbaugh, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal 
Service facility at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, NH, as the 
Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office.
  Jon, as he was called by his family and friends, moved to East 
Hampstead, NH, from St. Marys, OH, in 1989. He attended Hampstead 
Central Elementary School and Hampstead Middle School, where his 
mother, Patricia, is principal.
  Jon graduated high school from Phillips Exeter Academy, in Exeter, 
NH, where he was a 4-year honor student in the Class of 1999. Jon left 
a remarkable impression on the Phillips Exeter community; remembered 
for his manifestation of the motto ``Non Sibi'' or ``Not for Oneself,'' 
a Latin phrase inscribed on the Academy's seal. Jon exemplified his 
passion for life through his persistent dedication to his studies, 
tireless volunteer efforts in school and the local community, 
commitment to the academy's radio station, Grainger Observatory, and 
the school's Washington internship program.
  Jon's illustrious high school years were prologue to a promising 
future, full of infinite potential. Jon enrolled at Johns Hopkins 
University, where he graduated in 2003, earning a bachelors degree in 
computer science from the renowned Whiting School of Engineering.
  At a young age, Jon's family instilled in him the importance of 
volunteerism and service to the U.S. Jon's father, Mark, proudly served 
3\1/2\ years as an Army Ranger during Vietnam, and his older brother, 
West Point alum and Dartmouth Medical School graduate, Army Captain Dr. 
Jason Grassbaugh, is currently serving as an orthopedic surgeon in Fort 
Lewis, WA. Jon continued this family tradition of service, joining the 
Johns Hopkins Army ROTC program, and eventually becoming battalion 
commander his senior year. He also became a proud member of the 
Pershing Rifles fraternal organization, captained the Ranger Challenge 
Team, and won the national two-man duet drill team competition.
  In a storybook setting, Jon met Jenna Parkinson, a freshman ROTC 
cadet from Boxborough MA, during his senior year. Jon and Jenna slowly 
grew closer, watching movies together during spring break, sharing 
flights to and from school, and attending the military ball. A few 
short years later, Jon proposed to Jenna on April 30, 2005, and the 
young couple subsequently married on June 9, 2006, in a Cape Cod 
ceremony. Prior to their wedding day, Jon and Jenna filled out a 
questionnaire for their officiate, which asked, ``Where is a sacred 
spot, a place where you feel most connected, most at peace and most 
inspired?'' Jon's answer came in three loving words: ``With my wife.''
  Following graduation, Jon completed U.S. Army Ranger School in April 
2004 and served his country both at home and abroad. He was assigned to 
the 7th Cavalry in the Republic of South Korea and served as a member 
of the Army Hurricane Katrina Relief Team. Later, Jon was assigned to 
the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd 
Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, NC, where he and the now U.S. Army 2nd 
Lieutenant Jenna Grassbaugh would reside.
  Shortly after Jon and Jenna were married, he was deployed for a 
second tour of duty, in Iraq. Tragically, on April 7, 2007, Jon was one 
of four soldiers who died while conducting a combat logistics patrol in 
Zaganiyah, Iraq. Throughout Jon's distinguished military service, he 
received a number of accolades and commendations, including: the Bronze 
Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army 
Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement 
Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War 
on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian 
Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Badge, 
and Parachutist Badge.
  Jon is remembered as a confident and mentally strong leader, whose 
poise

[[Page 34264]]

under pressure, intelligence, compassion, and love for God, country and 
family transcends his passing. His valor on the field of battle was 
equally as impressive as his undying loyalty to and love for his 
squadron. One well-known anecdote recalls a combat operation in which 
Jon had pizza flown by helicopter from 100 kilometers away to where his 
troops were conducting combat operations in an effort to lift morale. 
Jon left a legacy that continues to inspire our Nation's future leaders 
from Hampstead and Exeter, NH, Johns Hopkins, and those he proudly 
served beside in Iraq.
  On a deep and personal note, for those who had the sincere privilege 
and honor to meet Jon, it was evident his exuberance for life and new 
experiences, ingenuity, and academic acumen destined him for greatness. 
By the time of his death, Jon had achieved more than most individuals 
do in a lifetime, a testimonial to his family's love and guidance 
through his young life, and Jenna's warmth and support as he fought for 
our Nation.
  Today, Jonathan Grassbaugh rests in peace at one of our Nation's most 
hallowed and sacred grounds, Arlington National Cemetery--his rightful 
place among generations of brave Americans who sacrificed their lives 
in defense of this country. His loved ones will forever remember him as 
a loving husband, son, brother, and friend. Let it be known, the 
citizens of New Hampshire and our Nation are eternally in debt to 
Jonathan David Grassbaugh, an honorable son of New Hampshire, an 
American Patriot, and a guardian of liberty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                Town of Hampstead,


                                      Office of the Selectmen,

                                    Hampstead, NH, December, 2007.
     Re Petition of dedication.

     Office of U.S. Senator John E. Sununu,
     Elm Street,
     Manchester, NH.
       Dear Senator Sununu,  Students of the Hampstead Middle: 
     School prepared a petition to support honoring Captain 
     Jonathan Grassbaugh, who gave his life for our country. The 
     petition seeks to honor him by dedicating the East Hampstead, 
     NH, 03826 Post Office in his name.
       The petition was presented to the Hampstead Board of 
     Selectmen on Monday, December 10, 2007.
       The Board of Selectmen accepted the petition and voted 
     unanimously to support the project.
       P1ease find enclosed the petition along with the signatures 
     of 526 individuals.
       Thank you for your help in moving this project forward.
           Very Truly Yours,
     Richard H. Hartung, Chairman.
     Priscilla R. Lindquist, Selectman.
     Jim Stewart,
       Selectman.
                                 ______
                                 
      BY Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 2479. A bill to catalyze change in the care and treatment of 
diabetes in the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with Senator 
Cornyn, an important bill--the Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act--
that will enhance and better coordinate our Nation's fight against 
diabetes.
  It is estimated that one out of every three Americans born after the 
year 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime. This startling 
statistic should be reason enough for this body to act swiftly and 
decisively on this issue. We must increase our investment into this 
deadly and costly disease before the epidemic reaches overwhelming 
proportions. The Catalyst for Better Diabetes Care Act marks an 
important step in this effort by focusing the government's attention on 
specific areas in diabetes care that can and must be improved.
  First, we must ensure that all Americans are aware of the importance 
and availability of diabetes screening. Like any preventable and 
manageable disease, early diagnosis of diabetes is key. Yet millions of 
Americans--nearly a third of the 20-plus million Americans with 
diabetes--have diabetes but don't know it. Recognizing the enormity of 
this problem, many of us in Congress fought hard in recent years to 
include a diabetes screening benefit in Medicare, a program that 
already spends a third of its total budget on diabetes patients. Now 
the challenge is to ensure that Americans are fully utilizing this and 
other screening opportunities, which is exactly what this bill aims to 
do. By establishing a collaboration and outreach program within the 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, this act would help 
reduce the number of Americans with diabetes who remain undiagnosed.
  The private sector also has a role to play in this fight. Thankfully, 
many companies have already started investing in employee wellness 
programs that reward pro-active, preventative care. With chronic 
diseases like diabetes driving up health insurance costs for 
individuals and employers, it is critical that new, pre-emptive 
approaches to health care are encouraged. This bill would create an 
advisory group in HHS to determine which wellness programs work and 
which do not, information that will encourage employers to provide 
effective diabetes prevention programs.
  It is also critical to carefully monitor our effectiveness in 
combating diabetes and the impact of this disabling and deadly 
condition on our nation. With that information in hand, we will be far 
better equipped to determine the nature and scope of diabetes 
prevention and treatment strategies. The bill includes two key 
provisions to address this need. It would create a National Diabetes 
Report Card that provides crucial information on diabetes' impact on 
the nation. The report card would be published every 2 years. It would 
also take steps to ensure accurate data on diabetes morbidity and 
mortality. Diabetes is often not listed anywhere on death certificates 
as a cause of death. This bill would ensure the training of physicians 
on properly completing birth and death certificates and improving the 
collection of diabetes data.
  Finally, this act would commission an Institute of Medicine study on 
diabetes medical education to ensure that physician training--which 
currently requires less than four hours of diabetes education--is 
keeping pace with the growing threat diabetes poses to the public's 
health. The study would make a recommendation as to the appropriate 
level of diabetes medical education that should be required prior to 
licensure, board certification, and board recertification.
  Our country faces a tremendously challenging fight against diabetes, 
but it is one we can and will win. The Catalyst for Better Diabetes 
Care Act is a targeted and cost-effective bill that will push us toward 
victory. Let us act quickly and pass this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Obama, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown, and 
        Mr. Cardin):
  S. 2481. A bill to prohibit racial profiling; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial 
Profiling Act of 2007.
  Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for 
many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic 
stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first 
revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial 
profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and 
diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they 
protect.
  In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told 
the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it 
in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to 
end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet 
and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003,

[[Page 34265]]

stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates 
negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are 
helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the 
force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's 
promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this 
country.
  The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President 
promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to 
racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this 
practice.
  Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents 
treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab 
Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national 
origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law 
enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in 
this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to 
Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, 
Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some 
police far more often than their share of the population and the crime 
rates for those racial categories.
  Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen 
racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans 
perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I 
share the determination of many Americans that finding those 
responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top 
priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But 
to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making 
assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not 
protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.
  A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African 
American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white 
person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be 
searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three 
and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, 
according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these 
encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal 
activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of 
this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School 
professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap 
and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''
  The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic 
groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to 
call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments 
around the country have independently developed programs and policies 
to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's 
policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement 
officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy 
training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and 
improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the 
efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and 
shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. 
But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force 
of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President 
Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and 
acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.
  Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste 
precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating 
discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle 
Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, 
resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, 
however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to 
terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and 
deportations.
  Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of 
individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 
1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los 
Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help 
us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people 
unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating 
sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it 
is wrong.
  It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive 
Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In 
clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial 
profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent 
with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does 
more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law 
enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the 
harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 
is a pro-law enforcement bill.
  This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to 
enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The 
bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement 
effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, 
implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the 
practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory 
activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to 
Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the 
steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have 
been effective.
  This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive 
grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, 
including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in-
car video cameras.
  Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a 
significant improvement over previous versions. In some early 
proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were 
tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling 
complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the 
field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either 
an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program 
to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate 
regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs 
that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option 
will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such 
programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial 
profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year 
demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data 
collection.
  Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement 
agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and 
protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law 
enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and 
without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and 
dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of 
those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every 
day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, 
religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be 
subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and 
seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific 
information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, 
or national origin to a crime.
  The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and 
confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to 
serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in 
stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act 
of

[[Page 34266]]

2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.
  I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial 
profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End 
Racial Profiling Act of 2007.
  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. 2481

       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 ``End Racial 
     Profiling Act of 2007'' or ``ERPA''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and intent.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

Sec. 101. Prohibition.
Sec. 102. Enforcement.

    TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW 
                          ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.

TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE, LOCAL, AND 
                 INDIAN TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 301. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 302. Administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor 
              program required for grants.
Sec. 303. Involvement of Attorney General.
Sec. 304. Data collection demonstration project.
Sec. 305. Best practices development grants.
Sec. 306. Authorization of appropriations.

                       TITLE IV--DATA COLLECTION

Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue regulations.
Sec. 402. Publication of data.
Sec. 403. Limitations on publication of data.

   TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL 
                     PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 501. Attorney General to issue regulations and reports.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Savings clause.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND INTENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement agents play a 
     vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting 
     the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law 
     enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties 
     professionally and without bias.
       (2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, national 
     origin, or religion in deciding which persons should be 
     subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, 
     searches, and seizures is improper.
       (3) In his address to a joint session of Congress on 
     February 27, 2001, President George W. Bush declared that 
     ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.''. 
     He directed the Attorney General to implement this policy.
       (4) In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued a Policy 
     Guidance regarding racial profiling by Federal law 
     enforcement agencies which stated: ``Racial profiling in law 
     enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-
     based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative 
     racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse 
     democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a 
     fair and just society.''.
       (5) The Department of Justice Guidance is a useful first 
     step, but does not achieve the President's stated goal of 
     ending racial profiling in America, as--
       (A) it does not apply to State and local law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (B) it does not contain a meaningful enforcement mechanism;
       (C) it does not require data collection; and
       (D) it contains an overbroad exception for immigration and 
     national security matters.
       (6) Current efforts by State and local governments to 
     eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, 
     while also laudable, have been limited in scope and 
     insufficient to address this national problem. Therefore, 
     Federal legislation is needed.
       (7) Statistical evidence from across the country 
     demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and measurable 
     phenomenon.
       (8) As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had 
     14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice 
     investigations involving allegations of racial profiling and 
     had filed 5 pattern or practice lawsuits involving 
     allegations of racial profiling, with 4 of those cases 
     resolved through consent decrees.
       (9) A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and 
     other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, 
     national origin, or religion are found to be law abiding and 
     therefore racial profiling is not an effective means to 
     uncover criminal activity.
       (10) A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police 
     contacts that occurred in 1999, found that, although Blacks 
     and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, 
     they were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On 
     average, searches and seizures of Black drivers yielded 
     evidence only 8 percent of the time, searches and seizures of 
     Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent of the 
     time, and searches and seizures of White drivers yielded 
     evidence 17 percent of the time.
       (11) A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the 
     activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal 
     year 1998 found that--
       (A) Black women who were United States citizens were 9 
     times more likely than White women who were United States 
     citizens to be x-rayed after being frisked or patted down;
       (B) Black women who were United States citizens were less 
     than half as likely as White women who were United States 
     citizens to be found carrying contraband; and
       (C) in general, the patterns used to select passengers for 
     more intrusive searches resulted in women and minorities 
     being selected at rates that were not consistent with the 
     rates of finding contraband.
       (12) A 2005 report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 
     the Department of Justice on citizen-police contacts that 
     occurred in 2002, found that, although Whites, Blacks, and 
     Hispanics were stopped by the police at the same rate--
       (A) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to be 
     arrested than Whites;
       (B) Hispanics were much more likely to be ticketed than 
     Blacks or Whites;
       (C) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to report 
     the use or threatened use of force by a police officer;
       (D) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to be 
     handcuffed than Whites; and
       (E) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to have 
     their vehicles searched than Whites.
       (13) In some jurisdictions, local law enforcement 
     practices, such as ticket and arrest quotas and similar 
     management practices, may have the unintended effect of 
     encouraging law enforcement agents to engage in racial 
     profiling.
       (14) Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it 
     because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger, 
     resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated 
     as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from 
     traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate 
     and intrastate commerce.
       (15) Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the 
     criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public 
     confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the 
     criminal law.
       (16) In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist 
     attacks, many Arabs, Muslims, Central and South Asians, and 
     Sikhs, as well as other immigrants and Americans of foreign 
     descent, were treated with generalized suspicion and 
     subjected to searches and seizures based upon religion and 
     national origin, without trustworthy information linking 
     specific individuals to criminal conduct. Such profiling has 
     failed to produce tangible benefits, yet has created a fear 
     and mistrust of law enforcement agencies in these 
     communities.
       (17) Racial profiling violates the equal protection clause 
     of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States. Using race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin 
     as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the constitutional 
     requirement that police and other government officials accord 
     to all citizens the equal protection of the law. Batson v. 
     Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 
     (1984).
       (18) Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through 
     suppression motions in criminal cases for 2 reasons. First, 
     the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 
     806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a 
     police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does 
     not warrant the suppression of evidence under the fourth 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Second, 
     since most stops do not result in the discovery of 
     contraband, there is no criminal prosecution and no evidence 
     to suppress.
       (19) A comprehensive national solution is needed to address 
     racial profiling at the Federal, State, and local levels. 
     Federal support is needed to combat racial profiling through 
     specialized training of law enforcement agents, improved 
     management systems, and the acquisition of technology such as 
     in-car video cameras.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection 
     of the laws, pursuant to the fifth amendment and section 5 of 
     the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States;
       (2) to enforce the constitutional right to protection 
     against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the 
     fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States;

[[Page 34267]]

       (3) to enforce the constitutional right to interstate 
     travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the 
     Constitution of the United States; and
       (4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3 
     of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (c) Intent.--This Act is not intended to and should not 
     impede the ability of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement to protect the country and its people from any 
     threat, be it foreign or domestic.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means 
     any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds 
     made available under--
       (A) the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Program (part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3750 et seq.)); and
       (B) the ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title 
     I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), but not including any program, 
     project, or other activity specified in section 1701(b)(13) 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)(13)).
       (2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body'' 
     means any department, agency, special purpose district, or 
     other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian 
     tribal government.
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603)).
       (4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agency'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal 
     public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or 
     investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or 
     customs laws.
       (5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agent'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal 
     official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or 
     customs laws, including police officers and other agents of a 
     law enforcement agency.
       (6) Racial profiling.--The term ``racial profiling'' means 
     the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to 
     any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion 
     in selecting which individual to subject to routine or 
     spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the 
     scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the 
     initial investigatory procedure, except when there is 
     trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and 
     timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified 
     criminal incident or scheme.
       (7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The 
     term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities'' 
     means the following activities by a law enforcement agent:
       (A) Interviews.
       (B) Traffic stops.
       (C) Pedestrian stops.
       (D) Frisks and other types of body searches.
       (E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons or 
     possessions (including vehicles) of motorists or pedestrians.
       (F) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the United 
     States that are more extensive than those customarily carried 
     out.
       (G) Immigration related workplace investigations.
       (H) Such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled 
     by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice 
     Departments Bureau of Justice Statistics.
       (8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request'' 
     means all requests for information, except for those that--
       (A) are immaterial to the investigation;
       (B) would result in the unnecessary exposure of personal 
     information; or
       (C) would place a severe burden on the resources of the law 
     enforcement agency given its size.
       (9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means--
       (A) any city, county, township, town, borough, parish, 
     village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a 
     State;
       (B) any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement 
     district that--
       (i) is established under applicable State law; and
       (ii) has the authority to, in a manner independent of other 
     State entities, establish a budget and impose taxes;
       (C) any Indian tribe that performs law enforcement 
     functions, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or
       (D) for the purposes of assistance eligibility, any agency 
     of the government of the District of Columbia or the Federal 
     Government that performs law enforcement functions in and 
     for--
       (i) the District of Columbia; or
       (ii) any Trust Territory of the United States.

                TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.

       No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall 
     engage in racial profiling.

     SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by 
     racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil action 
     for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State 
     court of general jurisdiction or in a district court of the 
     United States.
       (b) Parties.--In any action brought under this title, 
     relief may be obtained against--
       (1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement 
     agent who engaged in racial profiling;
       (2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling; 
     and
       (3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.
       (c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous 
     investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a 
     jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on racial, ethnic, 
     or religious minorities shall constitute prima facie evidence 
     of a violation of this title.
       (d) Attorney's Fees.--In any action or proceeding to 
     enforce this title against any governmental unit, the court 
     may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United 
     States, reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs, and 
     may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

    TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW 
                          ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.

       (a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
       (1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include--
       (1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
       (2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal 
     law enforcement training;
       (3) the collection of data in accordance with the 
     regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 401;
       (4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding 
     meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law 
     enforcement agents;
       (5) policies requiring that corrective action be taken when 
     law enforcement agents are determined to have engaged in 
     racial profiling; and
       (6) such other policies or procedures that the Attorney 
     General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.

TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE, LOCAL, AND 
                 INDIAN TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 301. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--An application by a State, a unit of local 
     government, or a State, local, or Indian tribal law 
     enforcement agency for funding under a covered program shall 
     include a certification that such State, unit of local 
     government, or law enforcement agency, and any law 
     enforcement agency to which it will distribute funds--
       (1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) has eliminated any existing practices that permit or 
     encourage racial profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include--
       (1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
       (2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law 
     enforcement training;
       (3) the collection of data in accordance with the 
     regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 401;
       (4) participation in an administrative complaint procedure 
     or independent auditor program that meets the requirements of 
     section 302;
       (5) policies requiring that corrective action be taken when 
     law enforcement agents are determined to have engaged in 
     racial profiling; and
       (6) such other policies or procedures that the Attorney 
     General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 12 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OR INDEPENDENT 
                   AUDITOR PROGRAM REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

       (a) Establishment of Administrative Complaint Procedure or 
     Independent Auditor Program.--An application by a State or 
     unit of local government for funding under a covered program 
     shall include a certification that the applicant has 
     established and is maintaining, for each law enforcement 
     agency of the applicant, either--
       (1) an administrative complaint procedure that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (b); or
       (2) an independent auditor program that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (c).
       (b) Requirements for Administrative Complaint Procedure.--
     To meet the requirements of this subsection, an 
     administrative complaint procedure shall--
       (1) allow any person who believes there has been a 
     violation of section 101 to file a complaint;
       (2) allow a complaint to be made--
       (A) in writing or orally;

[[Page 34268]]

       (B) in person or by mail, telephone, facsimile, or 
     electronic mail; and
       (C) anonymously or through a third party;
       (3) require that the complaint be investigated and heard by 
     an independent review board that--
       (A) is located outside of any law enforcement agency or the 
     law office of the State or unit of local government;
       (B) includes, as at least a majority of its members, 
     individuals who are not employees of the State or unit of 
     local government;
       (C) does not include as a member any individual who is then 
     serving as a law enforcement agent;
       (D) possesses the power to request all relevant information 
     from a law enforcement agency; and
       (E) possesses staff and resources sufficient to perform the 
     duties assigned to the independent review board under this 
     subsection;
       (4) provide that the law enforcement agency shall comply 
     with all reasonable requests for information in a timely 
     manner;
       (5) require the review board to inform the Attorney General 
     when a law enforcement agency fails to comply with a request 
     for information under this subsection;
       (6) provide that a hearing be held, on the record, at the 
     request of the complainant;
       (7) provide for an appropriate remedy, and publication of 
     the results of the inquiry by the review board, if the review 
     board determines that a violation of section 101 has 
     occurred;
       (8) provide that the review board shall dismiss the 
     complaint and publish the results of the inquiry by the 
     review board, if the review board determines that no 
     violation has occurred;
       (9) provide that the review board shall make a final 
     determination with respect to a complaint in a reasonably 
     timely manner;
       (10) provide that a record of all complaints and 
     proceedings be sent to the Civil Rights Division and the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice;
       (11) provide that no published information shall reveal the 
     identity of the law enforcement officer, the complainant, or 
     any other individual who is involved in a detention; and
       (12) otherwise operate in a manner consistent with 
     regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under section 
     303.
       (c) Requirements for Independent Auditor Program.--To meet 
     the requirements of this subsection, an independent auditor 
     program shall--
       (1) provide for the appointment of an independent auditor 
     who is not a sworn officer or employee of a law enforcement 
     agency;
       (2) provide that the independent auditor be given staff and 
     resources sufficient to perform the duties of the independent 
     auditor program under this section;
       (3) provide that the independent auditor be given full 
     access to all relevant documents and data of a law 
     enforcement agency;
       (4) require the independent auditor to inform the Attorney 
     General when a law enforcement agency fails to comply with a 
     request for information under this subsection;
       (5) require the independent auditor to issue a public 
     report each year that--
       (A) addresses the efforts of each law enforcement agency of 
     the State or unit of local government to combat racial 
     profiling; and
       (B) recommends any necessary changes to the policies and 
     procedures of any law enforcement agency;
       (6) require that each law enforcement agency issue a public 
     response to each report issued by the auditor under paragraph 
     (5);
       (7) provide that the independent auditor, upon determining 
     that a law enforcement agency is not in compliance with this 
     Act, shall forward the public report directly to the Attorney 
     General;
       (8) provide that the independent auditor shall engage in 
     community outreach on racial profiling issues; and
       (9) otherwise operate in a manner consistent with 
     regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under section 
     303.
       (d) Local Use of State Complaint Procedure or Independent 
     Auditor Program.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall permit a unit of local 
     government within its borders to use the administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program it 
     establishes under this section.
       (2) Effect of use.--A unit of local government shall be 
     deemed to have established and maintained an administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program for 
     purposes of this section if the unit of local government uses 
     the administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor 
     program of either the State in which it is located, or 
     another unit of local government in the State in which it is 
     located.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall go into effect 12 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 303. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders, 
     including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies 
     and community, professional, research, and civil rights 
     organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations 
     for the operation of the administrative complaint procedures 
     and independent auditor programs required under subsections 
     (b) and (c) of section 302.
       (2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness, 
     effectiveness, and independence of the administrative 
     complaint procedures and independent auditor programs.
       (b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that 
     the recipient of any covered grant is not in compliance with 
     the requirements of section 301 or 302 or the regulations 
     issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall 
     withhold, in whole or in part, funds for 1 or more covered 
     grants, until the grantee establishes compliance.
       (c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     notice and an opportunity for private parties to present 
     evidence to the Attorney General that a grantee is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of this title.

     SEC. 304. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, through 
     competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year 
     demonstration project for the purpose of developing and 
     implementing data collection on hit rates for stops and 
     searches. The data shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, 
     national origin, and religion.
       (b) Competitive Awards.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     not more than 5 grants or contracts to police departments 
     that--
       (1) are not already collecting data voluntarily or 
     otherwise; and
       (2) serve communities where there is a significant 
     concentration of racial or ethnic minorities.
       (c) Required Activities.--Activities carried out under 
     subsection (b) shall include--
       (1) developing a data collection tool;
       (2) training of law enforcement personnel on data 
     collection;
       (3) collecting data on hit rates for stops and searches; 
     and
       (4) reporting the compiled data to the Attorney General.
       (d) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into 
     a contract with an institution of higher education to analyze 
     the data collected by each of the 5 sites funded under this 
     section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out activities under this 
     section--
       (1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period for a demonstration 
     project on 5 sites; and
       (2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation in subsection (d).

     SEC. 305. BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General, through the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance, may make grants to States, law 
     enforcement agencies, and units of local government to 
     develop and implement best practice devices and systems to 
     eliminate racial profiling.
       (b) Use of Funds.--The funds provided under subsection (a) 
     may be used for--
       (1) the development and implementation of training to 
     prevent racial profiling and to encourage more respectful 
     interaction with the public;
       (2) the acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the 
     collection of data regarding routine investigatory activities 
     sufficient to permit an analysis of these activities by race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, and religion;
       (3) the analysis of data collected by law enforcement 
     agencies to determine whether the data indicate the existence 
     of racial profiling;
       (4) the acquisition and use of technology to verify the 
     accuracy of data collection, including in-car video cameras 
     and portable computer systems;
       (5) the development and acquisition of early warning 
     systems and other feedback systems that help identify 
     officers or units of officers engaged in, or at risk of 
     engaging in, racial profiling or other misconduct, including 
     the technology to support such systems;
       (6) the establishment or improvement of systems and 
     procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding 
     meaningfully to complaints alleging racial, ethnic, or 
     religious bias by law enforcement agents;
       (7) the establishment or improvement of management systems 
     to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the 
     conduct of their subordinates; and
       (8) the establishment and maintenance of an administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program under 
     section 302.
       (c) Equitable Distribution.--The Attorney General shall 
     ensure that grants under this section are awarded in a manner 
     that reserves an equitable share of funding for small and 
     rural law enforcement agencies.
       (d) Application.--Each State, local law enforcement agency, 
     or unit of local government desiring a grant under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.

     SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.

[[Page 34269]]



                       TITLE IV--DATA COLLECTION

     SEC. 401. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies and community, professional, research, 
     and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for 
     the collection and compilation of data under sections 201 and 
     301.
       (b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) provide for the collection of data on all routine or 
     spontaneous investigatory activities;
       (2) provide that the data collected shall--
       (A) be collected by race, ethnicity, national origin, 
     gender, and religion, as perceived by the law enforcement 
     officer;
       (B) include the date, time, and location of the 
     investigatory activities; and
       (C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of 
     whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial 
     profiling;
       (3) provide that a standardized form shall be made 
     available to law enforcement agencies for the submission of 
     collected data to the Department of Justice;
       (4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile 
     data on the standardized form created under paragraph (3), 
     and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice;
       (5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain 
     all data collected under this Act for not less than 4 years;
       (6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks, 
     consistent with best practices, against which collected data 
     shall be measured; and
       (7) provide that the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall--
       (A) analyze the data for any statistically significant 
     disparities, including--
       (i) disparities in the percentage of drivers or pedestrians 
     stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing 
     through the neighborhood;
       (ii) disparities in the percentage of false stops relative 
     to the percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped; and
       (iii) disparities in the frequency of searches performed on 
     minority drivers and the frequency of searches performed on 
     non-minority drivers; and
       (B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, prepare a report regarding 
     the findings of the analysis conducted under subparagraph (A) 
     and provide the report to Congress and make the report 
     available to the public, including on a website of the 
     Department of Justice.

     SEC. 402. PUBLICATION OF DATA.

       The Bureau of Justice Statistics shall provide to Congress 
     and make available to the public, together with each annual 
     report described in section 401, the data collected pursuant 
     to this Act.

     SEC. 403. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.

       The name or identifying information of a law enforcement 
     officer, complainant, or any other individual involved in any 
     activity for which data is collected and compiled under this 
     Act shall not be--
       (1) released to the public;
       (2) disclosed to any person, except for such disclosures as 
     are necessary to comply with this Act;
       (3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code (commonly know as the Freedom of 
     Information Act).

   TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL 
                     PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES

     SEC. 501. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS.

       (a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required 
     under sections 303 and 401, the Attorney General shall issue 
     such other regulations as the Attorney General determines are 
     necessary to implement this Act.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling 
     by law enforcement agencies.
       (2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a summary of data collected under sections 201(b)(3) 
     and 301(b)(1)(C) and from any other reliable source of 
     information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
       (B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent report 
     prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics under section 
     401(a)(8);
       (C) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies 
     under section 201;
       (D) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by State and local law enforcement 
     agencies under sections 301 and 302; and
       (E) a description of any other policies and procedures that 
     the Attorney General believes would facilitate the 
     elimination of racial profiling.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance is held to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the 
     application of the provisions of this Act to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 602. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit legal or 
     administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section 
     210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2483. A bill to authorize certain programs and activities in the 
Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of 
Energy, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Project Authorization Act 
of 2007, a collection of approximately 50 individual bills under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. All of 
the individual provisions included in this bill have been passed by the 
House of Representatives, and most have also been favorably reported 
from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe everything 
included within this bill is non-controversial and it is my hope that 
the Senate will pass this bill expeditiously.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table listing the 
various measures included in this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                     Forest Service Authorizations

       Sec. 101 Wild Sky wilderness (H.R. 886/S. 520)
       Sec. 102 Jim Weaver trail (H.R. 247)


                Bureau of Land Management Authorizations

       Sec. 201 Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station (H.R. 276)
       Sec. 202 Nevada National Guard land conveyance (H.R. 815/S. 
     1608)


                  National Park Service Authorizations

       Sec. 301 National Park Service cooperative agreements (H.R. 
     658/S. 241)
       Sec. 311 Carl Sandburg NHS boundary adjustment (H.R. 1100/
     S. 488)
       Sec. 312 Lowell NHP boundary adjustment (H.R. 299/S. 867)
       Sec. 313 Mesa Verde NP boundary adjustment (H.R. 783/S. 
     126)
       Sec. 321 Newtonia Civil War battlefields study (H.R. 376)
       Sec. 322 Soldiers' Memorial Military Museum study (H.R. 
     1047)
       Sec. 323 Wolf House study (H.R. 3998/S. 1941)
       Sec. 324 Space Shuttle Columbia study (H.R. 807)
       Sec. 325 Cesar Chavez study (H.R. 359/S. 327)
       Sec. 326 Taunton, MA study (H.R. 1021/S. 1184)
       Sec. 331 Francis Marion Commemorative Work (H.R. 497/S. 
     312)
       Sec. 332 Eisenhower Memorial Commission (H.R. 2094/S. 890)
       Sec. 333 American Latino museum commission (H.R. 512/S. 
     500)
       Sec. 334 Hudson-Fulton Champlain commissions (H.R. 1520/S. 
     1148)
       Sec. 335 National Museum of Wildlife Art (H. Con. Res. 116/
     S. Con. Res. 6)
       Sec. 336 Ellis Island Library redesignation (H.R. 759)
       Sec. 341 Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail (H.R. 
     1388/S. 797)
       Sec. 342 Lewis & Clark NHT visitor center conveyance (H.R. 
     761/S. 471)
       Sec. 343 Lewis & Clark NHT study of Eastern States (H.R. 
     3998/S. 1991)
       Sec. 344 Eightmile River Wild & Scenic River designation 
     (H.R. 986/ S. 553)
       Sec. 351 Denali National Park Exchange with Alaska Railroad 
     (H.R. 830/ S. 1808)
       Sec. 361 Underground Railroad Network (H.R. 1239/S. 1709)
       Sec. 371 Grand Canyon National Park Subcontractors (H.R. 
     1191)


                        National Heritage Areas

       Subtitle A Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA (H.R. 1483/
     S. 289)
       Subtitle B Niagara Falls National Heritage Area (H.R. 1483/
     S. 800)
       Subtitle C Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area (H.R. 
     1483/S. 955)
       Subtitle D Extension of Existing Heritage Area Authorities 
     (H.R. 1483/S. 817)
       Subtitle E Technical Corrections and Additions (H.R. 1483)
       Sec. 471 National Coal Heritage Area amendments (H.R. 1483/
     S. 817)
       Sec. 472 Rivers of Steel NHA addition (H.R. 1483/S. 817)

[[Page 34270]]

       Sec. 473 South Carolina NHA addition (H.R. 1483/S. 817)
       Sec. 474 Ohio and Erie Canal NHA amendments (H.R. 1483/S. 
     817)
       Sec. 475 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail (H.R. 1483/S. 
     1039)
       Sec. 481 Columbia-Pacific heritage area study (H.R. 407/S. 
     257)
       Sec. 482 Abraham Lincoln heritage sites in Kentucky (S. 
     955)


    Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey Authorizations

       Sec. 501 Alaska water resources study (H.R. 1114/S. 200)
       Sec. 502 Redwood Valley Water District payment schedule 
     (H.R. 235/S. 1112)
       Sec. 503 American River Pump Station project transfer (H.R. 
     482)
       Sec. 504 Watkins Dam enlargement (H.R. 839/S. 512)
       Sec. 505 New Mexico water planning assistance (H.R. 1904/S. 
     255)
       Sec. 506 Yakima Project lands and building conveyance (H.R. 
     386/S. 235)
       Sec. 507 Juab County, Utah conjunctive water use (H.R. 
     1736/S. 1110)
       Sec. 508 A&B Irrigation District contract repayment (H.R. 
     467/S. 220)
       Sec. 509 Oregon Water Resources (H.R. 495)
       Sec. 510 Republican River Basin study (H.R. 1025)
       Sec. 511 Eastern Municipal Water District (H.R. 30)
       Sec. 512 Inland Empire recycling projects (H.R. 122/S. 
     1054)
       Sec. 513 Bay Area regional recycling program (H.R. 1526/S. 
     1475)
       Sec. 514 Bureau of Reclamation site security (H.R. 1662/S. 
     1258)


                  Department of Energy Authorizations

       Sec. 601 Energy technology transfer (H.R. 85)
       Sec. 602 Steel & Aluminum Act amendments (H.R. 1126)
       Title VII Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
     (H.R. 3079/ S. 1634)
       Title VIII Compact of Free Association Amendments (H.R. 
     2705/S. 283)

                          ____________________