[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5167-5193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 720. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the 
Governor of a State, territory, or possession of the United States to 
order that the National flag be flown at half-staff in that State, 
territory, or possession in the event of the death of a member of the 
Armed Forces from that State, territory, or possession who dies while 
serving on active duty; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every day across our Nation, families, 
friends, and entire communities mourn the loss of fallen soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines. Michigan has lost 130 heroes in the wars 
in Iraq an Afghanistan. One of the most powerful ways we can honor 
those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country is to fly 
the flag they fought under at half-staff.
  At times during the course of these wars, governors around the 
country have issued proclamations for State agencies and residents to 
lower our Nation's flag to honor fallen service members from their 
States. Many Federal agencies in those States comply with such 
proclamations, but some have not. To a family member, the effect can be 
that the Federal Government appears not to be paying the proper respect 
to their loved one.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that would prevent this situation 
by giving governors the explicit authority to order the Nation's flag 
lowered to half staff when a member of the Armed Forces from their 
State dies while serving on active duty. It would also require Federal 
agencies in that State to lower their flags consistent with a 
governors' proclamation. Congressman Bart Stupak is introducing 
identical legis1ation in the House of Representatives.
  One of my greatest honors as the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee is to spend time with our troops, and they are as 
courageous, honorable, and capable a fighting force as the world has 
ever known. These men and women have made a commitment to protect our 
Nation. We need to make an equally strong commitment to honor them when 
they make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We owe our fallen 
soldiers, their families, and their communities a unified showing of 
respect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, and 
        Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 721. A bill to allow travel between the United States and Cuba; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Freedom 
to Travel to Cuba Act with Senator Dorgan and a number of Senators. 
This legislation addresses only the travel provisions of our Cuba 
policy.
  The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is very straightforward. It states 
that the President should not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, 
travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens.
  I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba 
through the years and I am reminded of something my dad used to say--if 
you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you are going to 
wind up getting what you already got. That has been the situation with 
the United States policy on Cuba. We have been trying the same thing 
for over 40 years, and our strategy has not worked. I am suggesting a 
change to get more people in Cuba to increase the dialogue.
  Most of us know that Fidel Castro's health is not good and that he 
ceded power to his brother Raul last year. I have heard arguments that 
now is not the time to change our policy toward Cuba, and that by 
changing policy, we could strengthen Raul's grip on the nation. This is 
the same argument we have been hearing for the last 40 years, simply a 
new verse.
  When we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to 
their families in Cuba, end the people-to-people exchanges, and stop 
the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we are not 
hurting the Cuban government--we are hurting the Cuban people. We are 
further diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and 
reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two 
countries.
  If we allow travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we 
take away the Cuban government's ability to blame the hardships of the 
Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the more we 
work to improve the lives of the Cuban people, the more we will reduce 
the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by the Cuban 
government.
  It is time for a different policy--one that goes further than 
embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a 
new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goal of 
sharing democratic ideas with the people of Cuba.
  The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our Cuba 
travel policy toward that will lead to real change for the people of 
Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for 
their plight than for them to hear it from their friends and extended 
family from the United States. Let them hear it from the American 
people who will go there. The people of this country are our best 
ambassadors and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a 
nation are all about. If we want to give the Cuban people real 
knowledge of the truth about America, we need to have Americans go 
there to share it.
  Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods, but the flow of 
ideas--ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to positive change 
in any nation. The rest of the world is not doing what we are doing. 
Countries around the world are trading with Cuba, investing in Cuba, 
and allowing their citizens to visit Cuba. China, Venezuela, and Iran 
are becoming the largest investors on the island. These nations are in 
a position to directly influence the future of Cuba. Americans are 
nowhere to be found.
  Keeping the door closed and yelling at the Castro government on the 
other side does nothing to spread democracy and does nothing to help 
the people of Cuba. Let us do something, let us open the door and talk 
to the Cuban people. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at 
this legislation and join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 722. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land 
adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of 
Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl 
in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land 
management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National 
Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of 
management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure 
adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A 
similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on 
National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested 
changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their 
approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the 
Subcommittee and their staff.
  For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon 
National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the 
monument would be best protected from future development under 
management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The 
Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed 
resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is 
best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by 
having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a

[[Page 5168]]

study would help to resolve the question of future management and 
whether expanding the monument's boundaries could complement current 
public and multiple-use needs.
  The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management 
options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources 
of the study area.
  This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the 
management options tor one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and 
protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful 
monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator 
McCain introducing the Walnut Canyon Study Act of 2007. I cosponsored 
similar legislation in the last Congress. That legislation had a 
favorable hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 
Unfortunately, we were unable to enact it before the Congress ended.
  The bill is simple. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of the Interior, utilizing a third-party consultant, to 
conduct jointly a study of approximately 31,000 acres surrounding 
Walnut Canyon National Monument. The purpose of this study is to help 
the land managers ascertain the best long-term management strategy for 
these surrounding lands in order to protect the natural, cultural, and 
recreational values. I want to emphasize that adding these acres to the 
monument is not the end goal of this study.
  As stated, the study area consists of approximately 31,000 acres. 
Approximately 25,000 acres are currently managed by the Forest Service 
through the Land Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National 
Forest. The plan was amended in early 2003 with local input to close 
the area to motorized access and remove the land encircling the 
monument from consideration for sale or exchange. The plan, as amended, 
is under revision. The remaining acres are comprised of State trust 
land managed by the State Lands Department and the Walnut Canyon 
National Monument itself, which is managed by the National Park 
Service. A small number of acres, about 200, are private land. That 
private land is already subject to the Coconino County and the 
Flagstaff City Council-approved Flagstaff-area Regional Land Use and 
Transportation Plan, RLUTP, which restricts development within the 
study area.
  This legislation is the product of extensive public input that 
included State and local officials, Federal agencies, and local 
citizens who use the land surrounding the monument. This public 
participation highlighted the core of the debate: how can we best 
protect the natural and cultural resources in the area while continuing 
the multiple-use management in a way that has stability and permanence. 
I hope that this independent study will help answer that important 
question. I urge my colleagues to approve the bill at the earliest 
possible date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 725. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
and Control Act of 1990 to reauthorize and improve that Act; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic 
Invasive Species Act of 2007. This bill, which reauthorizes the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a 
Comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to 
protect the Nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new 
problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is 
that it takes a comprehensive approach toward the problem of aquatic 
invasive species rather than just focusing on species after they are 
established and a nuisance. The bill deals with the prevention of new 
introductions of species, the screening of live aquatic organisms 
imported into the country, the rapid response to new invasions before 
they become established, and the research to implement the provisions 
of this bill.
  More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced 
into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining 
populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from 
pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically 
encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and 
often wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten 
biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.
  In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for 
Congress back the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released into 
the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 
more than 20 States are fighting to control them. They have traveled 
down the Mississippi River, then up the Arkansas River over to 
Oklahoma, and zebra mussels have been found out even in Nevada and 
California. From 1993 to 2003, rapidly multiplying zebra mussels caused 
$3 billion in damage to the Great Lakes region. Industry and 
municipalities spend millions to keep water pipes from becoming clogged 
with zebra mussels. And that is just the economic impact that one 
species has caused.
  Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great 
Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic 
invasive species was and still is maritime commerce.
  Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for 
ballast to maintain trim and stability. There are over 180 aquatic 
invasive species in the Great Lakes. Some of the more notorious aquatic 
invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into 
the Great Lakes when ships pulled into port and discharged their 
ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also 
attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.
  Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, 
Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not 
eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water 
management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a 
mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the 
Coast Guard recently turned the voluntary ballast water exchange 
reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water exchange program 
for all of our coasts. The current law requires that ships entering the 
Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks 
or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water 
exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have not been fully 
developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast 
technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This 
obstacle is serious because ultimately, only on-board ballast water 
treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance 
species being introduced through ballast water.
  Our bill addresses this problem by setting a ballast discharge 
standard. After 2011, all ships that enter any U.S. port after 
operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles will be 
required to use a ballast water treatment technology that meets the 
ballast technology standard. This standard is based on the standard 
proposed by the International Maritime Organization but is more 
protective of our waters by a factor of 100. The standard would ensure 
that ships discharge water that has less than 1 living organism that is 
greater than 50 micrometers per 10 cubic meters of water. If the Coast 
Guard determines in 2010 that technology is not available that can meet 
this standard, then the Coast Guard and EPA would establish a standard 
for ballast water management based on the best performance available 
that exceeds the international standard. Technology vendors and the 
maritime industry will know what standard they should be striving to 
achieve and when they will be expected to achieve it.
  I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched, 
and

[[Page 5169]]

some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of 
technologies includes ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, 
deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies 
has its own merits, and each has a different price tag attached to it. 
This bill will not overburden the maritime industry with an expensive 
requirement to install technology because the market for technology to 
meet a domestic and an international standard is evolving into a 
competitive market, and that competition will provide affordable 
technology.
  Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable 
technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of 
new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard 
regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the 
best technology currently available is.
  There are other important provisions of the bill that also address 
prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to 
consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing 
guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance 
species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with 
conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for 
introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to 
reduce those introductions. And this legislation, establishes a process 
to screen live organisms entering the country for the first time for 
non-research purposes.
  Organisms believed to be invasive would be imported based on 
conditions that prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Such a screening 
process might have prevented such species as the Snakehead, which has 
established itself in the Potomac River here in the DC area, from being 
imported.
  The third title of this bill addresses the early detection of new 
invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of 
aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded, 
this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement 
emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army 
Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and 
Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second 
dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up 
the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally 
important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species 
in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system.
  Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify 
threats and the tools to address those threats.
  Though invasive species threaten the entire nation's aquatic 
ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive 
species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180 
invasive species in the Great Lakes, and on average, a new species is 
introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause disruptions in the 
food chain which is now causing the decline of certain fish. Invasive 
species are believed to be the cause of a new dead zone in Lake Erie. 
And invasive species compete with native species for habitat.
  This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem 
which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great 
Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot 
be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on-
board and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species 
that was still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be 
introduced. By requiring that these ships immediately begin saltwater 
flushing so that freshwater species cannot survive in the saltwater 
being pumped through the ballast tank, this bill addresses a very 
serious issue in the Great Lakes. In 2012, these NOBOB ships, like all 
ships, will be required to install and use ballast technology.
  All in all, the bill would cost about $150 million each year if 
authorized funding were to be fully appropriated. This is a lot of 
money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great 
Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much 
greater. The zebra mussel, which is just 1 of the 180 species that has 
invaded the Great Lakes, has caused $3 billion in economic damage over 
10 years. Imagine what the cost of zebra mussels is to all of the 
states that are now dealing with them. Compared to the annual cost of 
zebra mussels and the hundreds of other aquatic invasive species, the 
cost of this bill is more than reasonable. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill 
swiftly through the Senate.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from 
Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. 
Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water systems, 
recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. 
Plants, such as Variable Leaf Milfoil, are crowding out native species. 
Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over Southern New England's tidal 
pools and have advanced well into Maine--to the potential detriment of 
Maine's lobster and clam industries.
  I rise today to join Senator Levin in introducing legislation to 
address this problem. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 
would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for 
combating alien species that invade our shores.
  The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally 
introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce 
biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives 
and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial 
fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and 
damaging public water supplies.
  In the 1950s, European Green Crabs swarmed the Maine coast and 
literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 
1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or 
find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number 
of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 
1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 
million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.
  Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our 
environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new 
invasions. It is too late to stop European green crabs from taking hold 
on the East Coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many 
other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.
  Senator Levin and I first introduced a version of this legislation in 
late 2002. Unfortunately, in the subsequent years in which Congress has 
failed to act on our legislation, a number of new invasive species have 
taken hold in Maine. North America's most aggressive invasive species--
hydrilla--was found shortly after we first introduced our legislation. 
This stubborn and fast-growing aquatic plant has taken hold in Pickerel 
Pond in the Town of Limerick, ME. This plant is now found throughout 
Pickerel Pond, where it diminishes recreational use for swimmers and 
boaters.
  Eurasian Milfoil is another invasive which has taken hold since our 
legislation was first introduced. Maine was the last of the lower 48 
States to be free of this stubborn and fast-growing invasive plant. 
Eurasian Milfoil degrades water quality by displacing native plants, 
fish and other aquatic species. The plant forms stems reaching up to 20 
feet high that cause fouling problems for swimmers and boaters. In 
total, there are now 27 documented cases of aquatic invasive species 
infesting Maine's lakes and ponds.
  When considering the impact of these invasive species, it is 
important to note the tremendous value of our lakes and ponds. While 
their contribution to our quality of life is priceless, their value to 
our economy is more measurable. Maine's Great Ponds generate nearly 13 
million recreational user days each year, lead to more than $1.2 
billion in annual income for Maine residents, and support more than 
50,000 jobs.
  With so much at stake, Mainers are taking action to stop the spread 
of

[[Page 5170]]

invasive species into our State's waters. The State of Maine has made 
it illegal to sell, possess, cultivate, import or introduce 11 invasive 
aquatic plants. Boaters participating in the Maine Lake and River 
Protection Sticker program are providing needed funding to aid efforts 
to prevent, detect and manage aquatic invasive plants. Volunteers are 
participating in the Courtesy Boat Inspection program to keep aquatic 
invasive plants out of Maine lakes. Before launch or after removal, 
inspectors ask boaters for permission to inspect the boat, trailer or 
other equipment for plants.
  While I am proud of the actions that Maine and many other States are 
taking to protect against invasive species, all too often their efforts 
have not been enough. Protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, 
and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by 
individual states alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal 
effectively with invasive species. The National Aquatic Invasive 
Species Act of 2007 will help my State and States throughout the Nation 
detect, prevent and respond to aquatic invasive species.
  The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 would be the most 
comprehensive effort ever undertaken to address the threat of invasive 
species. By authorizing $150 million per year, this legislation would 
open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill 
directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy 
cruise of invasive species into US waters through the ballast water of 
international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million 
per year to develop and implement these regulations.
  The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program 
to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It 
would provide additional funds for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish 
and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, 
the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for 
research, education, and outreach.
  The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack 
them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response 
system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take 
hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national 
monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing 
$25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response 
fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species 
have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next 
wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and 
destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.
  One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms 
to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial 
vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of 
stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton 
to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. 
Our legislation would require all ships, with limited exceptions, to 
meet environmentally protective performance standards for ballast water 
discharge by 2012. In addition, it would establish a mandatory ballast 
water management program that includes invasive species management 
plans, ballast management reporting requirements, and best management 
practices for all ships in US waters.
  The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 offers a strong 
framework to combat aquatic invasive species. I call on my colleagues 
to help us enact this legislation in order to protect our waters, 
ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species--before 
even more of them take hold in our lakes and rivers and along our 
coastlines.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Lott, Mr. Smith, Mr. Alexander, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 727. A bill to improve and expand geographic literacy among 
kindergarten through grade 12 students in the United States by 
improving professional development programs for kindergarten through 
grade 12 teachers offered through institutions of higher education; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Teaching 
Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend 
from Connecticut Mr. Dodd. The purpose of this bill is to improve 
geographic literacy among K-12 students in the United States by 
supporting professional development programs for their teachers that 
are administered in institutions of higher education. The bill also 
assists States in measuring the impact of education in geography.
  Ensuring geographic literacy prepares students to be good citizens of 
both our Nation and the world. Last May, John Fahey, President of the 
National Geographic Society, stated that ``Geographic illiteracy 
impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations 
and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' When students 
understand their own environment, they can better understand the 
differences in other places, and the people who live in them. Knowledge 
of the diverse cultures, environment, and distances between States and 
countries helps our students to understand national and international 
policies, economies, societies, and political structures on a more 
global scale.
  The 2005 publication, What Works in Geography, reported that 
elementary school geography instruction significantly improves student 
achievement and proved that the integration of geography into the 
elementary school curriculum improves student literacy achievement an 
average of 5 percent. That's the good news. However, the 2006 National 
Geographic-Roper Global Geographic Literacy Survey shows that 69 
percent of elementary school principals report a decrease in time spent 
teaching geography and less than a quarter of our Nation's high school 
students take a geography course in high school. This survey shows that 
many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills to navigate our 
international economy, policies and relationships.
  To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with the 
other people in this world, we need to be able to communicate and 
understand each other. It is a fact that we have a global marketplace, 
and that will continue to be the case. We need to be preparing our 
younger generation for global competition and ensuring that they have a 
strong base of understanding to be able to succeed. A strong base of 
geography knowledge improves those opportunities.
  The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced yesterday that 27.9 
percent of the U.S. GDP, that is $3.7 trillion, annually results from 
international trade. According to the CIA World Factbook of 2005, U.S. 
workers need geographic knowledge to compete in this global economy. 
Geographic knowledge is increasingly needed for U.S. businesses in 
international markets to understand such factors as physical distance, 
time zones, language differences, and cultural diversity among project 
teams.
  In addition, geospatial technology is a new and emerging career 
available to people with an extensive background in geography 
education. Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in 
Federal Government agencies, the private sector and the non-profit 
sector, focusing on areas such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, 
land appraisal, and urban planning and development. In the United 
States, there are currently 175,000 individuals employed in the 
geospatial technology industry. It is estimated that this industry is 
growing up to 14 percent per year and it is projected to be a $5-6 
billion industry by 2010. A strong geography education system is a 
necessity for this industry's continued advancement.
  Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``To solve most of the 
major problems facing our country today, from wiping out terrorism, to

[[Page 5171]]

minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge of 
AIDS, will require every young person to learn more about other 
regions, cultures, and languages.''
  We need to do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the 
education of our students, from kindergarten through high school 
graduation, are prepared and trained to teach these critical skills to 
solve these problems. Over the last 15 years, the National Geographic 
Society has awarded more than $100 million in grants to educators, 
universities, geography alliances, and others for the purposes of 
advancing and improving the teaching of geography. Their models are 
successful and research shows that students who have benefitted from 
this teaching outperform other students. State geography alliances 
exist in 19 States, including Mississippi, endowed by grants from the 
society. But, their efforts alone are not enough. The bill I am 
introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance the education 
of our teachers, focus on geography education research, and develop 
reliable, advanced technology based classroom materials.
  In my State of Mississippi, teachers and university professors are 
making progress to increase geography education in the schools through 
additional professional training. Based at the University of 
Mississippi, over 300 geography teachers are members of the Mississippi 
Geography Alliance. Two weeks ago, the Mississippi Geography Alliance 
conducted a workshop for graduate and undergraduate students who are 
preparing to be certified to teach elementary through high school-level 
geography in our State. The workshop provided opportunities for model 
teaching sessions and discussion of best practices in the classroom.
  I hope the Senate will consider the seriousness of the need to invest 
in geography and I invite other Senators to cosponsor the Teaching 
Geography is Fundamental Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 728. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out 
restoration projects along the Middle Rio Grande; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a project of 
great importance to my State and our environment--one that has been 
discussed before on this floor when I helped unveil a vision that would 
rehabilitate and restore New Mexico's Bosque. I return here today to 
implement this vision that concerns this long neglected treasure of the 
Southwest.
  I would like to point out that this project passed through this body 
in the last Congress. The project that I am proposing today was 
contained in the 2005 Water Resources Development Act, which passed the 
Senate on July 19, 2006. I hope that this important project will again 
obtain the approval of the Senate.
  The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of 
people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian 
forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns 
that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in 
the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.
  Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream 
development have severely degraded the Bosque. The list of its woes is 
long: It has been overrun by non-native vegetation; graffiti and trash 
mar locations along its length; the drought and build up of hazardous 
fuel have contributed to fires. As a result, public access is 
problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is threatened.
  Yet the Middle Rio Grande Bosque remains one of the most biologically 
diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque 
and create a space that is open and attractive to the public.
  This is a grand undertaking to be sure; but I want to ensure that 
this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is preserved for 
generations to come--not only for generations of humans, but for the 
diverse plant and animal species that reside in the Bosque as well.
  The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for 
threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds, 
healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood 
trees. This project can increase the quality of life for a city while 
assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. Where trash 
is now strewn, paths and trails will run. Where jetty jacks and 
discarded rubble lie, cottonwoods will grow. The dead trees and 
underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy 
groves of trees. School children will be able to study and maybe catch 
sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space 
like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress 
embrace that chance on this occasion.
  Having grown up along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is 
something I treasure, and I lament the degradation that has occurred. 
Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991, 
and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the 
work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river. I 
propose to build on their efforts with the legislation I am introducing 
today.
  I remain grateful to each of the parties who have been involved with 
this idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical 
component of the project. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 
(the ``MRGCD") owns the vital part of the Bosque which runs from the 
National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte Bridge. 
The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner that has worked 
with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, 
protected and enjoyed by everyone. Additionally, the Army Corps of 
Engineers is developing a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque 
along the Albuquerque corridor.
  My bill authorizes $10 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2007 and such 
sums as are necessary for the following nine years to complete 
projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, 
protection, and recreation facilities along the Middle Rio Grande. I 
urge my fellow members to help preserve this rare and diverse ecosystem 
and to aid the city of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico in 
building a place to treasure.
  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. 728

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Middle Rio Grande bosque is--
       (A) a unique riparian forest along the Middle Rio Grande in 
     New Mexico;
       (B) the largest continuous cottonwood forest in the 
     Southwest;
       (C) one of the oldest continuously inhabited areas in the 
     United States;
       (D) home to portions of 6 pueblos; and
       (E) a critical flyway and wintering ground for migratory 
     birds;
       (2) the portion of the Middle Rio Grande adjacent to the 
     Middle Rio Grande bosque provides water to many people in the 
     State of New Mexico;
       (3) the Middle Rio Grande bosque should be maintained in a 
     manner that protects endangered species and the flow of the 
     Middle Rio Grande while making the Middle Rio Grande bosque 
     more accessible to the public;
       (4) environmental restoration is an important part of the 
     mission of the Corps of Engineers; and
       (5) the Corps of Engineers should reestablish, where 
     feasible, the hydrologic connection between the Middle Rio 
     Grande and the Middle Rio Grande bosque to ensure the 
     permanent healthy growth of vegetation native to the Middle 
     Rio Grande bosque.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Middle rio grande.--The term ``Middle Rio Grande'' 
     means the portion of the Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the 
     headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, in the State of New 
     Mexico.
       (2) Restoration project.--The term ``restoration project'' 
     means a project carried out under this Act that will produce, 
     consistent with other Federal programs, projects, and 
     activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, 
     preservation, recreation, and protection benefits.

[[Page 5172]]

       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.

     SEC. 3. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION.

       (a) Restoration Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     restoration projects along the Middle Rio Grande.
       (b) Project Selection.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may select restoration 
     projects in the Middle Rio Grande based on feasibility 
     studies.
       (2) Use of existing studies and plans.--In carrying out 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, studies and plans in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act to identify the needs and 
     priorities for restoration projects.
       (c) Local Participation.--In carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act 
     Collaborative Program; and
       (2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande 
     Bosque Initiative.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Cost-sharing agreement.--Before carrying out any 
     restoration project under this Act, the Secretary shall enter 
     into an agreement with the non-Federal interests that shall 
     require the non-Federal interests--
       (A) to pay 25 percent of the total costs of the restoration 
     project through in-kind services or direct cash 
     contributions, including the cost of providing necessary 
     land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal 
     sites;
       (B) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the restoration project that are incurred after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (C) to hold the United States harmless for any claim or 
     damage that may arise from the negligence of the Federal 
     Government or a contractor of the Federal Government.
       (2) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
     Federal interest carrying out a restoration project under 
     this Act may include a nonprofit entity.
       (3) Recreational features.--
       (A) In general.--Any recreational features included as part 
     of a restoration project shall comprise not more that 30 
     percent of the total project cost.
       (B) Non-federal funding.--The full cost of any recreational 
     features included as part of a restoration project in excess 
     of the amount described in subparagraph (A) shall be paid by 
     the non-Federal interests.
       (4) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of design or 
     construction activities carried out by the non-Federal 
     interests (including activities carried out before the 
     execution of the cooperation agreement for a restoration 
     project) if the Secretary determines that the work performed 
     by the non-Federal interest is integral to the project.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2016.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 729. A bill to better provide for compensation for certain persons 
injured in the course of employment at the Rocky Flats site in 
Colorado; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I 
introduced today. The Rocky Flats Special Exposure Cohort Act will at 
long last repay our debt to the patriotic American workers of Rocky 
Flats, who served our Nation during the Cold War.
  Many Americans contributed to our victory in the Cold War. Brave men 
and women worked in laboratories and factories throughout the Nation, 
fashioning nuclear weapons that led to the fall of the former Soviet 
Union. Unfortunately, many of these Cold War Veterans contracted cancer 
and other disabling and fatal diseases due to their service.
  Before I arrived to Washington, DC, Congress recognized the 
sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons workers by enacting the Energy 
Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA) to provide 
benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses or 
to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives.
  While thousands of workers are successfully applying and receiving 
benefits today, others face incredible obstacles as they try to 
demonstrate that they qualify for benefits. In fact, a combination of 
missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers 
from accessing benefits who served at the Rocky Flats facility in 
Colorado.
  Our government failed these workers when they maintained shoddy, 
inaccurate, and incomplete records. Thankfully, Congress had the 
foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers 
might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work 
in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or 
other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the 
dose of radiation they received. To protect these workers, Congress 
designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they 
suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to 
radiation exposure.
  Since February 2005, Rocky Flats workers have patiently and 
diligently been making their case to the Federal Government. 
Unfortunately, many of the Rocky Flats workers are running out of time. 
Over the past 2 years, several have passed away without having received 
the healthcare and other benefits that they would have qualified for if 
they were granted an SEC designation.
  Their petition is being reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation 
and Worker Health (ABRWH), a body that is stretched thin. In the past, 
I have raised my strong concerns about the several unfilled Advisory 
Board seats. I commend these Americans for having answered the calls of 
their government to serve our country. Like our Cold War Veterans, 
Advisory Board members have sacrificed their time and energy to perform 
an important service. I believe it is the responsibility of this 
Congress to fulfill its duty as well.
  The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort 
status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its 
contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of 
the EEOICPA. As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker 
suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers will be able to receive 
benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of 
Energy and its contractors.
  Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing 
plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and 
crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men 
and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our 
national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe 
them an enormous debt of gratitude.
  My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill, H.R. 904, 
introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Ed 
Perlmutter from Colorado. I look forward to its bipartisan support in 
the Senate and urge this body to swiftly take up and pass this 
important legislation. In doing so, we will right a wrong and fulfill a 
task that is long overdue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 730. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to protect 
voting rights and to improve the administration of Federal elections, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we move forward in the coming months in 
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on critical election 
reform hearings, I wanted to take this opportunity to re-introduce my 
legislation, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights 
(VOTER) Act of 2007. I am committed to working with our new Rules 
Committee Chair Senator Feinstein and my other Rules Committee 
colleagues, and with others off the committee, to try to secure 
enactment of tough new election reform legislation in this Congress. 
This bill provides a focus and framework for that discussion.
  It does not purport to address all of the key problems in election 
reform that have arisen since enactment in 2002 of the historic Help 
America Vote Act (HAVA), but it is an important start, and I am pleased 
that Senator Feinstein and I will be working together on comprehensive 
reform legislation this year. In light of the continuing barriers that 
American citizens found at polling places across this Nation last 
November, including technological barriers, human errors, and

[[Page 5173]]

other problems, we cannot rest on the laurels of past legislation. We 
must continue to strive to provide an equal opportunity for all 
citizens to participate in their democracy by voting and having their 
vote counted.
  That's why today I am re-introducing this legislation. There is 
nothing more fundamental to the vitality of a democracy of the people, 
by the people, and for the people, than the people's right to vote. In 
the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of voting for representatives is 
the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' Indeed, it is 
the right on which all others in our democracy depend.
  We still have a long way to go before we get to the point where all 
Americans are able to participate without obstacles in our elections, 
and able to participate with confidence in the voting systems they use. 
In the 2000 presidential election, 51.2 percent of the eligible 
American electorate voted. And although in the 2004 presidential 
election voting participation reached its highest level since 1968, 
only 60.7 percent of eligible Americans voted. That dropped back down, 
in the 2006 off-year elections, to just over 40 percent.
  While there are many reasons why more Americans do not vote, we 
learned from the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections that many 
citizens cannot vote and have their vote counted because they are 
improperly removed from registration rolls, do not have access to 
accessible voting systems and ballots, or lack confidence in antiquated 
and error-prone machines and State administrative procedures. In 
response to those concerns, in 2002 Congress enacted HAVA, 
overwhelmingly bipartisan election reform legislation. For the first 
time in our history, that landmark legislation established the role of 
the Federal Government in administering and funding Federal elections. 
The twin goals of the act were to make it easier to vote and harder to 
defraud the system.
  On the day that the Senate adopted its version of HAVA, I noted that 
the Senate bill was a bipartisan compromise and the culmination of the 
hard work of a dedicated group of Senators. But I also noted that the 
compromise was just that--it was not everything that all of us wanted, 
but it was something that everyone wanted. That was equally true of the 
final HAVA compromise on election reform.
  The 2004 and 2006 elections raised both continuing and new concerns. 
And some of the most important of these concerns are not addressed by 
HAVA. The fact that less than one-half of the eligible voting age 
population voted in 2006 underscores the reality that not everybody 
votes in America. We must do better on this front, and we can. As the 
2006 elections in some states reminded us, we also must do better at 
bolstering Americans' confidence in the security and reliability of our 
election systems, while preserving critical access to people with 
disabilities, language minorities, and others.
  Let me summarize briefly what this bill does. First, the VOTER Act 
provides every eligible American, regardless of where they live in the 
world or where they find themselves on election day, the right to cast 
a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot in Federal elections. This 
new national absentee ballot extends to all citizens the same right to 
a Federal absentee ballot that overseas and active military voters 
currently have. Beginning with Federal elections in 2008, every State 
shall provide early voting opportunities for a minimum of 15 days prior 
to election day, including Saturdays. Beginning in 2009, any otherwise 
eligible voter must be allowed to register to vote on election day and 
have that vote counted in Federal elections. This last provision would 
in itself be a major advance.
  The VOTER Act also addresses many of the recurring, and new, barriers 
to voting that voters faced at the polls in the last two federal 
elections. It requires that a State count a provisional ballot for 
Federal office cast within the State by an otherwise eligible voter, 
notwithstanding the polling place where the ballot is cast.
  HAVA established a uniform national right for every voter in a 
Federal election to receive and cast a provisional ballot. This new 
right was intended to ensure that no otherwise eligible voter could be 
turned away from the polls because of an administrative error or other 
challenge. But in 2004, and again in 2006, we saw this right eroded by 
States and applied in non-uniform ways. Some States, such as Ohio, 
initially interpreted HAVA to require that a voter be in their correct 
precinct in order to cast a Federal provisional ballot. Other States 
interpreted the same HAVA language to allow challenged voters to cast a 
provisional ballot in their county of residence. Whether or not the 
provisional ballot was ultimately counted turned solely on State law. 
This bill ensures that voters who cast a provisional ballot for Federal 
office will have that ballot counted in a uniform manner.
  In addition, the VOTER Act requires that each State provide a minimum 
required number of voting systems and poll workers for each polling 
place on election day and during early voting, consistent with 
mandatory standards established by the Election Assistance Commission. 
This is to avoid the problem of long lines and disenfranchised voters 
because of too few voting systems or ballots at polling places and too 
few poll workers to assist voters. This requirement would become 
effective in January, 2008.
  To ensure that all voters have an opportunity to independently verify 
their ballot before it is cast and counted, the VOTER Act also requires 
that all States provide voters a voter-verified ballot with a choice of 
at least four formats for verification: a paper record; an audio 
record; a pictorial record; and an electronic record or other means 
which is fully accessible to the disabled, including the blind and 
visually impaired.
  HAVA already requires that all voting systems provide voters an 
opportunity to verify their ballot before it is cast and counted. HAVA 
also requires that all systems produce a permanent paper record for 
audit purposes. However, it does not spell out how that verification is 
to be achieved to ensure security and independence of the voter's 
choice.
  In the last few years, many have called on Congress to require a 
voter-verified paper ballot. And I understand what is behind that 
impulse. Even so, unless voter verification schemes are carefully 
crafted, paper-only processes can be less accurate, printer jams can 
result in more destroyed ballots, and they can inherently discriminate 
against the disabled, particularly the blind and visually-impaired. 
HAVA already requires that all voters, regardless of disability, be 
able to verify their ballots. With current and developing technology--
and with new approaches being developed which will require paper 
ballots which are then convertible into formats for verification that 
are accessible to persons with disabilities and language minorities--I 
am hopeful that as we move forward we will be able to work out an 
approach on which all sides can agree.
  I continue to believe it is important to preserve the anti-
discrimination requirements in current law, by ensuring that 
appropriate verification alternatives are offered to those who need 
them. I know my colleagues have various proposals on this issue to 
bring before the Committee for its consideration, either separately or 
as part of more comprehensive reform efforts, and we should examine 
those proposals carefully. That process has already begun with the 
Committee's hearing last month which focused on problems with 
electronic voting systems, including those currently before the court 
in the contested election for the 13th Congressional District in 
Sarasota County, Florida.
  The VOTER Act also addresses the continuing problem of minority 
disenfranchisement through last-minute purges of voter registration 
lists by requiring States to provide public notice of any such purges 
not later than 45 days before a Federal election.
  To expedite the studies called for under HAVA for establishing 
election day as a Federal holiday, the VOTER Act requires the EAC to 
complete its

[[Page 5174]]

study and issue recommendations within 6 months of enactment and 
earmarks funds within the EAC budget solely for this purpose.
  It also includes amendments to HAVA that build on the existing voting 
system requirements to ensure that all voting systems, including punch 
cards and central count optical scan machines, provide voters with 
actual notice of over-votes. Also, beginning in 2009, States must allow 
for voter registration through the Internet. The bill also includes 
provisions to ensure both the security and uniform treatment of voter 
registration applications by requiring that all voters sign an 
affidavit attesting to both their citizenship and age, in lieu of the 
HAVA requirements for a check-off box alone, effective in 2009.
  HAVA requires that voter registration forms include questions 
regarding citizenship and age with check-off boxes that applicants use 
to indicate whether or not they meet eligibility requirements. States 
are further required to contact any applicant who does not fill in the 
boxes in order to complete the form. However, in the 2004 and 2006 
elections, States implemented this requirement in widely varying ways, 
resulting in non-uniform treatment of voters in Federal elections. In 
some cases, States refused to process the form and failed to contact 
the voter. In other States, voters who had submitted incomplete forms 
were asked to complete those forms at the polling place. While the twin 
purposes of HAVA were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud 
the system, as implemented this requirement achieves neither purpose. 
This requirement further resulted in disenfranchising voters who failed 
to check a box but nonetheless signed an affidavit, under penalty of 
perjury, attesting to both their citizenship and age. With the 
implementation of statewide voter registration lists, the check-off box 
requirement is unnecessary and burdensome to both voters and election 
administrators.
  To ensure that the implementation of the voter identification 
requirements in HAVA do not make it harder to vote, the VOTER Act 
expands the forms of identification that can be used to establish 
identity for first-time voters who submit their voter registration by 
mail to include an affidavit executed by the voter attesting to his or 
her identity, generally subject to penalties for perjury under State 
law.
  The VOTER Act also begins to respond to concerns first raised in the 
2000 Presidential election in Florida, and echoed again in the 2004 and 
2006 elections, regarding the appearance of impartiality by State 
election officials who were otherwise active in Federal campaigns. The 
bill imposes new accountability and transparency requirements on 
States, beginning in 2008, including a public notice requirement of any 
changes in State law affecting the administration of elections, such as 
changes in polling places and actions denying access to polling place 
observers. Some have urged going beyond this, including by banning 
state election officials from engaging in political activity in races 
which they oversee; the committee should consider this approach 
carefully.
  To ensure the independence of the Election Assistance Commission, and 
the timely issuance of guidance and standards, the bill provides the 
agency with independent budget authority and the authority to issue 
mandatory standards to implement the new requirements. Finally, in 
recognition of the inherent role of the States in the administration of 
Federal elections, the VOTER Act provides additional Federal funds for 
the State requirement grants under HAVA to implement the new 
requirements.
  This measure does not pretend to be exhaustive, and I know there are 
other important reform ideas that will be considered by the committee, 
including measures to penalize deceptive voter intimidation practices, 
to impose additional voting systems testing, to improve poll worker 
training, to ease registration for new voters, and others. I welcome a 
full discussion of all of these issues.
  While Congress accomplished much with the passage of the Help America 
Vote Act following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, 5 
years later voters still face some of the same barriers to voting that 
HAVA promised to remove. As we move forward on election reform this 
year, let us ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal 
opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in Federal 
elections.
  I invite my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this measure, and 
I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of 
this measure be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Act of 2007


                      section-by-section analysis

     Sec. 1.--Tit1e; Table of Contents.
     Sec. 2.--Findings and Purposes.
     Sec. 3.--National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot.
       Sec. 3 creates a National Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot 
     (NFWAB) for Federal office to be used in a Federal election 
     by any otherwise eligible voter.
       Sec. 3 requires States to accept the NFWAB cast by any 
     person eligible to vote in a Federal election, provided the 
     ballot has been postmarked or signed by the voter before the 
     close of the polls on election day.
       Sec. 3 requires the Election Assistance Commission to 
     prescribe a national Federal write-in absentee ballot and 
     prescribe standards for distributing the ballot, including 
     distribution through the Internet.
     Sec. 4.--Voter Verified Ballots.
       Sec. 4 requires that all voting systems purchased after 
     January 1, 2009 and used in Federal elections provide an 
     independent means for each voter to verify the ballot before 
     it is cast and counted.
       Sec. 4 allows each voter to choose one means of 
     verification from among the following options--(l) paper; (2) 
     audio; (3) pictorial; or (4) an electronic record accessible 
     for voters with disabilities.
     Sec. 5.--Requirements for Counting Provisional Ballots.
       Sec. 5 requires that a State shall count a provisional 
     ballot for Federal office cast within the State by an 
     otherwise eligible voter, notwithstanding the polling place 
     in which the ballot is cast.
     Sec. 6.--Minimum Required Voting Systems and Poll Workers in 
         Polling Places.
       Sec. 6 requires that each state shall provide the minimum 
     required number of voting systems and poll workers for each 
     polling place on election day and during early voting, 
     consistent with mandatory standards established by the 
     Election Assistance Commission.
     Sec. 7.--Election Day Registration.
        Sec. 7 requires that each State shall provide for election 
     day registration in a Federal election for any otherwise 
     eligible individual, using a form established by the Election 
     Assistance Commission, unless the State does not have a voter 
     registration requirement.
     Sec. 8.--Integrity of Voter Registration Lists.
       Sec. 8 requires that each State provide public notice at 
     least 45 days before a Federal election of all names removed 
     from the voter registration list.
     Sec. 9.--Early Voting.
       Sec. 9 requires that each State shall establish an early 
     voting program for a minimum of 15 calendar days before a 
     Federal election that provides a uniform voting period each 
     day, except Sunday, for at least 4 hours.
     Sec. 10.--Acceleration of Study on Election Day as a Public 
         Holiday.
       Sec. 10 requires the Election Assistance Commission to 
     submit within 6 months of enactment of this Act the report on 
     establishing a public election day holiday and uniform poll 
     closing time, and authorizes $100,000 for fiscal year 2007 
     for that purpose.
     Sec. 11.--lmprovements to Voting Systems.
       Sec. 11 requires that punch card and central count voting 
     systems conform to the in person notice of over-votes in Sec. 
     301 of the Help America Vote Act and to permit a--voter to 
     verify and change or correct any errors before the ballot is 
     cast and counted.
     Sec. 12.--Voter Registration.
       Sec. 12 requires that, by January 1, 2009, the mail 
     registration form be changed to include an affidavit to be 
     signed by the voter attesting to citizenship and age 
     eligibility and requires each State to establish a program to 
     permit voter registration through the Internet.
     Sec. 13.--Establishing Voter Identification.
       Sec. 13 requires that an individual may meet the 
     identification requirement for voters who register by mail as 
     described in Sec. 303 of the Help America Vote Act by 
     executing a written affidavit attesting to the individual's 
     identity.
       Sec. 13 requires the Election Assistance Commission to 
     develop standards for verifying voter identification 
     information required for registration (the driver's license

[[Page 5175]]

     number or last four digits of the social security number), as 
     described in Sec. 303 of the Help America Vote Act.
     Sec. 14.--Impartial Administration of Elections.
       Sec. 14 requires that each State will issue a public notice 
     of changes in State election law since the most recent 
     election.
        Sec. 14 requires that each State will allow uniform, 
     nondiscriminatory access to observe a Federal election at any 
     polling place to party challengers, voting and civil rights 
     organizations, and nonpartisan domestic and international 
     observers.
     Sec. 15.--Strengthening the Election Assistance Commission.
       Sec. 15 requires the Election Assistance Commission to 
     provide budget estimates and requests to the Congress, the 
     House Administration Committee, and the Senate Rules and 
     Administration Committee when it submits such estimates and 
     requests to the President or Office of Management and Budget; 
     the section provides rule-making authority for the Election 
     Assistance Commission with respect to subtitle C of this Act; 
     the section requires that the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Standards and Technology provide the Commission 
     with technical support.
       Sec. 15 authorizes $23 million for the operational costs of 
     the Election Assistance Commission for fiscal year 2007, with 
     $3 million earmarked for the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology for technical support, and such sums as 
     necessary for the succeeding fiscal years.
     Sec. 16.--Authorization of Appropriations.
       Sec. 16 authorizes $2 billion for fiscal year 2007 and such 
     sums as necessary thereafter for requirements grants to 
     States under title II of the Help America Vote Act to 
     implement the additional requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Webb, Mr. Tester, 
        and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 731. A bill to develop a methodology for, and complete, a national 
assessment of geological storage capacity for carbon dioxide, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the 
National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007.
  Our earth is getting warmer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration recently announced that 2006 was the warmest year on 
record, and every single year since 1993 has fallen in the top twenty 
warmest years on record.
  In February 2007, a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change found the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels have 
increased more than 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. The 
increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing 
to the increased temperatures we are seeing today.
  The United States is the largest emitter of CO2 in the 
world, and much of these emissions come from satisfying our energy 
needs. These same energy needs that fuel our homes, our cars, and our 
economy are hurting our planet. The debate on climate change in the 
Senate has started to transform, it has gone from whether or not 
climate change is real, to what can we do, now, to address climate 
change. There has been much discussion in the Senate about the need to 
create a clean energy future for America, and there is much optimism 
about our ability to produce energy in ways that do not harm the 
environment.
  In attempting to limit emissions, one promising step we can take is 
to sequester carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration is a process where 
carbon is captured before it is released into the atmosphere, 
compressed, and stored underground in geological areas such as saline 
formations, unmineable coal seams, and oil and gas reservoirs. This 
technology exists today.
  My legislation would start us on the path to large-scale 
sequestration by directing the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a 
national assessment of our sequestration capacity. Specifically, this 
assessment would evaluate the potential capacity and rate of carbon 
sequestration in all possible sites throughout the United States, as 
well the various risk levels involved.
  Carbon sequestration also holds potential economic benefits for the 
United States. Sequestration has the potential to enhance the recovery 
capabilities of certain oil, gas, and coal-bed reservoirs increasing 
the efficiency of these important resources to the benefit of all.
  The Department of Energy has already established seven regional 
carbon sequestration partnerships. These partnerships have vital 
experience and understanding about the potential for storing carbon 
dioxide. This bill will build upon the existing work of these 
partnerships, and create a national database assessable to the public 
on the potential storage sites across the United States--enabling 
companies to make cost-effective decisions needed to make sequestration 
a viable option.
  The need to combat climate change is here; many of the techniques and 
technologies to combat climate change are available; and we have the 
will to act. What is missing for carbon sequestration is a accessible, 
national assessment of the potential storage sites. This bill gives us 
the tools our country needs to spur the implementation of carbon 
sequestration, fight climate change, and create a clean energy future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 732. A bill to empower Peace Corps volunteers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, March 1, marks the 46th Anniversary 
of the Peace Corps. Never in our history has it been more critical that 
the Peace Corps succeed in its mission to ``promote world peace and 
friendship.'' As we all know, the Peace Corps seeks to advance both a 
better understanding of Americans and better understanding by 
Americans; and these goals are especially central if we want to 
effectively counter the spread of extremist ideology to disaffected 
people around the world, people who, after all, know as little of us as 
we know of them.
  Since 1961, nearly 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served our 
Nation as citizen diplomats. For the last 45 years, by living and 
working side-by-side with people from 139 nations, these volunteers 
have represented the very best of American ideals: working to improve 
the human condition, and overcoming barriers of culture, language and 
religion, through patience, mutual respect, and partnership.
  The Peace Corps is an absolutely crucial instrument in advancing 
America's longer term foreign policy goals. And so today I am proud to 
introduce the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act that is designed to 
make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the 
21st Century. I am also very pleased to announce that another returned 
Peace Corps volunteer, Congressman Sam Farr will shortly introduce a 
companion bill in the House so that both bodies can begin working to 
pass this very important legislation.
  The bill will provide seed monies for active Peace Corps volunteers 
for demonstration projects at their specific in-country sites. It 
authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations to be 
distributed by the Peace Corps as grants to returned Peace Corps 
volunteers interested in undertaking ``third goal'' projects in their 
communities. The bill will also authorize active Peace Corps volunteers 
to accept, under certain carefully defined circumstances, private 
donations to support their development projects.
  For any organization to thrive, managers and leaders must have access 
to first-hand knowledge and perspectives of those working on the front 
lines. And so, this bill will establish mechanisms for more volunteer 
input into Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site 
selection, language training and country programs. This bill will also 
explicitly protect certain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with 
respect to termination of service and whistleblower protection.
  We must bring the Peace Corps into the digital age. To that end, this 
bill will provide volunteers with better means of communication by 
establishing websites and email links for use by volunteers in-country.
  Inadequate funding and internal structural roadblocks have 
unfortunately resulted in an unfulfilled Presidential pledge to double 
the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. Despite a large increase in 
volunteers signing up for the

[[Page 5176]]

Peace Corps immediately after September 11, the Congressional Research 
Service reports that the number of Peace Corps volunteers actually 
declined in 2006. It is crucial that we work to reverse this troubling 
trend. That is why this bill authorizes active recruitment from the 
185,000 returned Peace Corps volunteer community for second tours as 
volunteers and as participants in third goal activities in the United 
States.
  This bill will also remove certain medical, healthcare and other 
impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps 
volunteers. It will create more transparency in the medical screening 
and appeals process, and require reports on costs associated with 
extending post-service health coverage from 1 month to 6 months.
  Finally, and perhaps most crucially, my bill includes annual 
authorizations for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2011, so that we can provide 
the means by which the Peace Corps can double the number of volunteers 
to 15,000, by 2011.
  In all the controversies of the past 5 years, all the vagaries of 
strategy and tactics and plans and counter plans, there's one policy 
that guarantees success: sending our best young men and women into the 
world to make America known. So, I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill, to modernize, strengthen and enlarge the Peace Corps. On the 
46th Anniversary of this great program, let us act swiftly to ensure 
that at the very least, the Peace Corps will continue to thrive for an 
additional 46 years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 733. A bill to promote the development of health care cooperatives 
that will help businesses to pool the health care purchasing power of 
employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, labor, and pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator 
Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to help businesses 
form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to 
reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' 
health care.
  High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across 
the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access 
to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the 
system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than 
by what they need.
  Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual 
employee's health care is $3,615. For a family, the employer 
contribution is $8,508. We must curb these rapidly increasing health 
care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has 
access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local 
initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality 
of employees' health care.
  By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers 
have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their 
employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, 
there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States 
that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses 
are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery 
of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions 
represent over 10,000 employers nationwide.
  Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of 
care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be 
able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as 
quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care 
expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services 
and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health 
care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with 
health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.
  Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and 
access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. 
Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and 
implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have 
formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a 
demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.
  In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that 
have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of 
care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance 
Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit 
cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane 
County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 157 member 
employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain 
affordable, high-quality health care for their nearly 73,000 employees 
and dependents.
  This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such 
as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase 
access to affordable and high-quality health care.
  The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize 
grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group-
purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care 
rates, and improve quality.
  This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different 
types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both 
programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program 
would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while 
the second program would help small businesses that purchase their 
health insurance.
  My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective 
cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. 
First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from 
physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling 
their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could 
better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates 
and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able 
to share information regarding the quality of these services and to 
partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their 
employees.
  For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the 
formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at 
lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within 
these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with 
better information about the health care options that are available to 
them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements 
by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care 
providers.
  By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance 
plans and negotiate better rates.
  This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's 
farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their 
families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry 
looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced 
out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers 
join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase 
their health insurance options.
  Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and 
have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an 
incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar 
businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also 
given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as 
enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving 
quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which 
creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they 
will be invested in the organization.
  We must reform health care in America and give employers and 
employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the 
formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve

[[Page 5177]]

the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve 
the quality and costs of health care.
  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. 733

       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 ``Promoting Health Care 
     Purchasing Cooperatives Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Health care spending in the United States has reached 
     16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United 
     States, yet 46,000,000 people remains uninsured.
       (2) After nearly a decade of manageable increases in 
     commercial insurance premiums, many employers are now faced 
     with consecutive years of double digit premium increases.
       (3) Purchasing cooperatives owned by participating 
     businesses are a proven method of achieving the bargaining 
     power necessary to manage the cost and quality of employer-
     sponsored health plans and other employee benefits.
       (4) The Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative has 
     provided its members with health care purchasing power 
     through provider contracting, data collection, activities to 
     enhance quality improvements in the health care community, 
     and activities to promote employee health care consumerism.
       (5) According to the National Business Coalition on Health, 
     there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United 
     States that collectively purchase health care, proactively 
     challenge high costs and the inefficient delivery of health 
     care, and share information on quality. These coalitions 
     represent more than 10,000 employers.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to build off of 
     successful local employer-led health insurance initiatives by 
     improving the value of their employees' health care.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO SELF INSURED BUSINESSES TO FORM HEALTH CARE 
                   COOPERATIVES.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''), 
     acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, is authorized to award grants to 
     eligible groups that meet the criteria described in 
     subsection (d), for the development of health care purchasing 
     cooperatives. Such grants may be used to provide support for 
     the professional staff of such cooperatives, and to obtain 
     contracted services for planning, development, and 
     implementation activities for establishing such health care 
     purchasing cooperatives.
       (b) Eligible Group Defined.--
       (1) In general.--In this section, the term ``eligible 
     group'' means a consortium of 2 or more self-insured 
     employers, including agricultural producers, each of which 
     are responsible for their own health insurance risk pool with 
     respect to their employees.
       (2) No transfer of risk.--Individual employers who are 
     members of an eligible group may not transfer insurance risk 
     to such group.
       (c) Application.--An eligible group desiring a grant under 
     this section shall submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       (d) Criteria.--
       (1) Feasibility study grants.--
       (A) In general.--An eligible group may submit an 
     application under subsection (c) for a grant to conduct a 
     feasibility study concerning the establishment of a health 
     insurance purchasing cooperative. The Secretary shall approve 
     applications submitted under the preceding sentence if the 
     study will consider the criteria described in paragraph (2).
       (B) Report.--After completion of a feasibility study under 
     a grant under this section, an eligible group shall submit to 
     the Secretary a report describing the results of such study.
       (2) Grant criteria.--The criteria described in this 
     paragraph include the following with respect to the eligible 
     group:
       (A) The ability of the group to effectively pool the health 
     care purchasing power of employers.
       (B) The ability of the group to provide data to employers 
     to enable such employers to make data-based decisions 
     regarding their health plans.
       (C) The ability of the group to drive quality improvement 
     in the health care community.
       (D) The ability of the group to promote health care 
     consumerism through employee education, self-care, and 
     comparative provider performance information.
       (E) The ability of the group to meet any other criteria 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (e) Cooperative Grants.--After the submission of a report 
     by an eligible group under subsection (d)(1)(B), the 
     Secretary shall determine whether to award the group a grant 
     for the establishment of a cooperative under subsection (a). 
     In making a determination under the preceding sentence, the 
     Secretary shall consider the criteria described in subsection 
     (d)(2) with respect to the group.
       (f) Cooperatives.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible group awarded a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall establish or expand a health insurance 
     purchasing cooperative that shall--
       (A) be a nonprofit organization;
       (B) be wholly owned, and democratically governed by its 
     member-employers;
       (C) exist solely to serve the membership base;
       (D) be governed by a board of directors that is 
     democratically elected by the cooperative membership using a 
     1-member, 1-vote standard; and
       (E) accept any new member in accordance with specific 
     criteria, including a limitation on the number of members, 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Authorized cooperative activities.--A cooperative 
     established under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) assist the members of the cooperative in pooling their 
     health care insurance purchasing power;
       (B) provide data to improve the ability of the members of 
     the cooperative to make data-based decisions regarding their 
     health plans;
       (C) conduct activities to enhance quality improvement in 
     the health care community;
       (D) work to promote health care consumerism through 
     employee education, self-care, and comparative provider 
     performance information; and
       (E) conduct any other activities determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary.
       (g) Review.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which grants are awarded under this section, and every 2 
     years thereafter, the Secretary shall study programs funded 
     by grants under this section and provide to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the progress of such 
     programs in improving the access of employees to quality, 
     affordable health insurance.
       (2) Sliding scale funding.--The Secretary shall use the 
     information included in the report under paragraph (1) to 
     establish a schedule for scaling back payments under this 
     section with the goal of ensuring that programs funded with 
     grants under this section are self sufficient within 10 
     years.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES TO FORM HEALTH CARE 
                   COOPERATIVES.

       The Secretary shall carry out a grant program that is 
     identical to the grant program provided in section 3, except 
     that an eligible group for a grant under this section shall 
     be a consortium of 2 or more employers, including 
     agricultural producers, each of which--
       (1) have 99 employees or less; and
       (2) are purchasers of health insurance (are not self-
     insured) for their employees.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       From the administrative funds provided to the Secretary, 
     the Secretary may use not more than a total of $60,000,000 
     for fiscal years 2008 through 2017 to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 734. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
the rate of the tentative minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers to 24 
percent; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation to provide relief to the rising number of taxpayers 
impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Between a lack of 
indexing for inflation and higher AMT tax rates relative to the regular 
income tax system, we now have a tax system which has grown far beyond 
its intended result. Important changes must be made to address these 
two critical issues. Absent legislative action, the number of taxpayers 
subject to AMT liability will continue to rise sharply. The AMT Rate 
Reduction Act of 2007 would bring the AMT back ``in line'' with the 
regular individual income tax by reducing its rate back to 24 percent. 
Combined with the continued extension of the AMT exemption, this 
proposal would remove millions of unintended middle-class taxpayers 
from the AMT rolls.
  The AMT functions as a parallel tax system to the regular income tax 
so that when a taxpayer's AMT liability exceeds their regular income 
tax liability, that person must pay the AMT. The AMT is set up to 
ensure that high-income taxpayers pay their fair share by denying 
certain deductions and exemptions available under the regular income 
tax. However, the AMT is now hitting the middle class--and hitting them 
hard.

[[Page 5178]]

  It is important to keep in mind that the first version of the AMT was 
created in 1969 in response to a small number of high-income 
individuals who had paid little or no federal income taxes. In 2006, 
3.5 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT, and that number will 
continue to increase sharply in the coming decade. In Pennsylvania 
alone, 79,000 individuals filed their returns under the AMT in 2003, 
accounting for 1.37 percet of all Pennsylvania returns; 114,000 
Pennsylvania returns were filed under the AMT in 2004, accounting for 
1.97 percent of all Pennsylvania returns; and 137,486 Pennsylvania 
returns were filed under the AMT in 2005.
  This onerous tax is slapped on average American families largely 
because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, while the regular income 
tax is indexed, and taxpayers are ``pushed'' into the AMT through so-
called ``bracket creep.'' Temporary increases in the AMT exemption 
amounts expired at the end of 2006. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 increased the AMT exemption amount effective 
for tax years between 2001 and 2004; the Working Families Tax Relief 
Act of 2004 extended the previous increase in the AMT exemption amounts 
through 2005; and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 
2005 increased the AMT exemption amount for 2006. If we do not again 
adjust the AMT exemption amount, it is estimated that the number of 
taxpayers subject to the AMT will jump from 3.5 million in 2006 to 23 
million in 2007, with middle-income taxpayers most affected. In 
Pennsylvania alone, that number will jump drastically to 837,000 in 
2007. According to the Congressional Research Service, taxpayers filing 
joint returns with no dependents will be subject to the AMT starting at 
income levels of $75,386. Large families will be subject to the AMT at 
income levels as low as $49,438.
  In addition to the issue of indexing the AMT exemption amount for 
inflation, the AMT tax rate relative to the regular income tax must 
also be addressed to keep additional taxpayers who were never intended 
to pay the AMT from being subject to its burdensome grasp. In 1993, 
President Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress imposed a 
significant tax hike on Americans through the regular income tax. At 
the same time, the AMT tax rate was also increased from 24 percent to 
26 percent for taxable income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28 
percent for taxable income that exceeds $175,000. In theory, these 
simultaneous changes had the effect of keeping roughly the same number 
of individuals paying their taxes under the AMT. However, when 
President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, Congress did 
not again adjust the AMT tax rates. Ironically, by reducing regular 
income tax liabilities without substantially changing the AMT, many new 
taxpayers were pushed into these higher AMT tax rates created in 1993.
  According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on 
February 23, 2007, entitled ``Bill Clinton's AMT Bomb,'' the number of 
filers paying the AMT increased from 300,000 to nearly 2 million 
between 1992 and 2002. The WSJ also cites a Joint Committee on Taxation 
(JCT) analysis from April 2006 which shows that about 11 million more 
Americans will have to pay the AMT next year as a result of the 1993 
AMT rate increase. It concludes that ``going back to the pre-Clinton 
rates would leave only about 2.6 million tax filers subject to an AMT 
penalty next year instead of 23 million under current law.''
  The most unfortunate aspect of adjusting the AMT is the associated 
cost. According to the April 2006 JCT analysis, the ten-year cost of my 
proposal, combined with extension of the AMT exemption amount, is a 
staggering $632.7 billion. However, it is still substantially less than 
the cost of full repeal. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, it is estimated that repealing the AMT would cost, depending 
on whether the recent reductions in the regular income tax are extended 
beyond 2010, $806 billion to over $1.4 trillion from 2007 through 2016.
  I am cognizant of the fact that Democrats in the 110th Congress will 
seek to fully offset the cost of the lost revenue resulting from any 
adjustment to the AMT. With the political realities being as such, I am 
willing to work with my colleagues to identify reasonable offsets, if 
they are necessary, to garner broad support for this effort. However, 
it is questionable whether an offset should be needed to recover 
``lost'' revenue that was never intended to be collected in the first 
place.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to both simplify our tax 
code and to identify the best avenue for keeping unintended taxpayers 
from falling prey to the AMT. I will continue to support the so-called 
``hold-harmless patch.'' By both extending and increasing the AMT 
exemption amount to keep up with inflation, the ``patch'' ensures that 
no additional taxpayers on the lower end of the income spectrum become 
liable for the AMT. However, I urge my colleagues to support my 
legislation which would remove millions of additional unintended 
taxpayers who are currently subject the AMT.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 734

       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 ``AMT Rate Reduction Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN RATE OF TENTATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR 
                   NONCORPORATE TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 55(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to noncorporate 
     taxpayers) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a 
     corporation, the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year 
     is--
       ``(I) 24 percent of the taxable excess, reduced by
       ``(II) the alternative minimum tax foreign tax credit for 
     the taxable year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     55(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking clause (iii).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, and Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 735. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the 
terrorist hoax statute; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the wake of the tragic events of 
September 11, Congress, the Administration and the country faced the 
urgent need to do all we can to strengthen our national security and 
counterterrorism strategy. Soon after the attacks, Congress moved 
swiftly to enact new intelligence and law enforcement powers for the 
Federal Government through the PATRIOT Act. Since then, we have also 
enacted legislation to reform our intelligence laws, and we spent 
significant time re-authorizing key provisions of the PATRIOT Act last 
year.
  Yet, much work still needs to be done to achieve the goals of the 9/
11 Commission. Two and a half years after its report, many of its 
recommendations haven't been implemented and the Nation remains 
seriously unprepared for another terrorist strike. A top priority is to 
enact the pending Improving America's Security Act--an important step 
in the right direction to implement the Commission's recommendations 
and strengthen the nation's preparedness against terrorism.
  Given the circumstances driving the passage of these measures, the 
administration and Congress must continue to work together to assess 
whether existing national security laws are adequate and make necessary 
improvements when required.
  While families in Boston, New York and across the country were still 
grieving over the tragedy of September 11, our communities suddenly 
faced a new threat, when anthrax contamination resulted in 5 deaths and 
20 hospitalizations across the country. As Federal,

[[Page 5179]]

State and local law enforcement struggled to deal with the threat of 
terrorism, yet another challenge arose because of reckless individuals 
who perpetrated hoaxes that caused panic, unrest and expenditure of 
critical resources.
  Since September 11 such hoaxes have seriously disrupted many lives 
and needlessly diverted law-enforcement and emergency-services 
resources. In the wake of the anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001, for 
example, a number of individuals mailed unidentified white powder, 
intending for the recipient to believe it was anthrax. Over 150,000 
anthrax hoaxes were reported between September 2001 and August 2002.
  In Massachusetts, one of these hoaxes was directed at a military 
facility. Fire trucks and hazmat responders rushed to the scene at the 
Agawam armory, only to learn that the powder spread over the armory 
equipment was not a toxic substance.
  Hoaxes about anthrax continue to be a serious problem. Earlier this 
week, such a scare shut down a university campus in Missouri when a 
student claimed to have a bomb and anthrax. It was a false alarm, but 
authorities had no choice except to make a serious response. They 
quarantined 23 people and evacuated 6,000 students from the campus and 
a nearby elementary school. The emotional and financial costs 
associated with these hoaxes puts an extraordinary strain on our 
communities and resources.
  Progress has been made to pass Federal and State laws to give 
prosecutors the authority to charge perpetrators engaging in such 
reckless conduct. Without tough and comprehensive laws on the books, 
successful and fair prosecutions are much more difficult.
  In 2004, Congress enacted the first Federal terrorism hoax statute. 
Its purpose was to establish definitions and set serious penalties to 
deal with the problem of hoax crimes, but events have moved the need 
for additional authority. A significant number of prosecutions have 
taken place for individuals who disrupt communities with terrorist 
hoaxes, but a disturbing pattern has also developed of new hoaxes not 
covered by the original law.
  A few weeks ago in Boston, advertisers using so-called ``guerrilla 
tactics'' left strange packages near sites essential for our region's 
infrastructure. A serious response obviously had to be made, but its 
cost was high. Our public safety officials did an outstanding job in 
responding to the threat and discovering the hoax. Boston, Cambridge, 
Somerville and other affected local governments are struggling to deal 
with the cost and lost productivity it caused.
  The incident highlighted the need to close the gaps in existing 
federal law on terrorist hoaxes. The current statute only punishes 
hoaxes involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This 
list does not include, for example, hoaxes related to taking hostages, 
to blowing up energy facilities, attacks on military bases, or attacks 
on railways and mass-transit facilities, such as the London bombings.
  The legislation I am introducing today will punish hoaxes involving 
any terrorist offense listed in current law. It also increases the 
maximum penalty for hoaxes involving the death or injury of a U.S. 
soldier during wartime.
  One such incident involved a soldier from Flagstaff, Arizona who was 
then serving in Iraq. On a Sunday morning a prank caller devastated the 
family of a 22-year-old in the Army, falsely telling them their son was 
dead. The call came only hours after the soldier had appeared in an 
Arizona Daily Sun photo at a Support the Troops rally.
  The hoax was a nightmare for the family. It took them a full day to 
get confirmation that their son was still alive in Iraq. As a member of 
the family testified, ``As a result of this ordeal, my family had been 
put in an upheaval that is unimaginable. My mother, my brother, my 
sister and everybody in my family were placed in terror and 
immeasurable pain. My niece even went into premature labor.''
  The consequences of this hoax went beyond the soldier's family. The 
Army had allowed him to call home from Iraq by satellite phone to 
reassure them that he was alive and uninjured. But another soldier had 
been killed bringing him the satellite phone to make the call.
  As the son wrote to his uncle: ``I have seen things words can't 
describe and done things I don't want to. I lost some friends out here 
loading their bodies on the truck was the worst feeling in the world. 
One guy died bringing me a satellite phone so I could call dad to let 
him know I was alive. It made me think of Saving Private Ryan. Was it 
worth his life and the risk of three others to bring me a phone? I know 
it was a relief to all of you to hear I was OK. Now I feel I must make 
my life worth his. I don't know if I can do that.''
  The person who caused such a hoax deserves to be punished. This bill 
assures that effective penalties will be imposed for similar crimes in 
the future.
  The bill also expands civil liability to allow first responders and 
others to seek reimbursement from a party who knows that first 
responders are responding to such a hoax and fails to inform 
authorities that no such event has occurred.
  Finally, the bill clarifies that threatening communications are 
punishable under federal law even if they are directed at an 
organization rather than a person.
  It's unconscionable in this post-9/11 world, for anyone to be 
perpetrating hoaxes that cause panic and drain already limited public 
safety resources.
  All of us remember where we were and what we were doing on 9/11. We 
will never forget the lives that were lost and the heroism of the first 
responders. We honor all those working so hard today to prevent future 
attacks. Hopefully, this bill will fulfill its purpose of preventing 
the false alarms that can be so disruptive of our families and our 
communities in these difficult and dangerous times.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing 
today along with Senator's Kennedy and Kyl will install tougher 
penalties on those who commit terrorism hoaxes. This is a very 
important issue to me given the September 2001 bomb threat to the Mall 
of America and because St. Paul is hosting the 2008 Republican 
Convention.
  We need to send a clear message to those planning a terrorism hoax 
that they will pay for it dearly by spending a number of years in 
prison. Terrorizing the public through false threats is not a joke and 
should be treated as criminal conduct. The threats may be fake but the 
consequences are very real in costs to first responders, lost revenues 
and sometimes the loss of human life.
  The problem is the current federal statute only punishes hoaxes 
involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This list 
does not include: hoaxes related to the taking of hostages in order to 
coerce the Federal Government; hoaxes related to blowing up an energy 
facility; hoaxes related to attacks on military bases aimed at 
undermining national defense; or hoaxes related to attacks on railways 
and mass-transportation facilities, such as the recent London bombings.
  The Kennedy-Coleman-Kyl legislation fills these gaps by expanding the 
hoax statute to punish hoaxes involving any offense included on the 
U.S. Code's official list of federal terrorist offenses. Specifically, 
this bill: expands on the current terrorism hoax statute so this 
punishes hoaxes about any terrorist offense on the U.S. Code's official 
list of terrorist offenses; increases the maximum penalties for hoaxes 
about the death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime; expands 
current law's civil liability provisions to allow first responders and 
others to seek reimbursement from a party who perpetrates a hoax and 
becomes aware that first responders believe that a terrorist offense is 
taking place but fails to inform authorities that no such event has 
occurred; and clarifies that threatening communications are punishable 
under federal law even if they are directed at an organization rather 
than a natural person.
  The bill increases the penalties for perpetrating a hoax about the 
death, injury, or capture of a U.S. soldier during wartime. Under the 
bill, the maximum penalty for such hoax would be

[[Page 5180]]

10 years' imprisonment, and a hoax resulting in serious bodily injury 
could be punished by up to 25 years' imprisonment. I urge my colleagues 
to pass this bipartisan measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 736. A bill to provide for the regulation and Oversight of 
laboratory tests; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Smith 
today to introduce the Laboratory Test Improvement Act. Our goal is to 
ensure the quality of clinical tests used every day in hospitals and 
doctors' offices across the country. Physicians often base medical 
decisions on the results of such tests, and patients deserve confidence 
that they will not be wrongly diagnosed or given the wrong pill because 
of a faulty test.
  In this era of rapid progression in the life sciences, we are 
learning more and more about the human genome and the genetic basis of 
disease. Genetic tests are now available for over a thousand different 
diseases, and the number is continuing to grow. The tests are being 
used to diagnose illnesses, predict who is most susceptible to specific 
diseases, and identify persons who carry a genetic disease that they 
could pass on to their children.
  Today, doctors often apply different treatments until they find one 
that is effective and safe for a patient. But such a trial and error 
strategy often delays effective treatment and may well cause avoidable 
adverse events. In many cases today, however, clinical tests can enable 
doctors to avoid such errors. Through personalized medicine and the use 
of newly developed genetic tests, doctors are able to give a particular 
drug only to patients in whom it is very likely to be effective and 
safe, and can avoid giving it to patients who might suffer an adverse 
reaction.
  As additional technologies are developed and our knowledge increases, 
clinical testing will become more and more important in guiding medical 
decisions, and it is essential for us to see that the tests meet a high 
standard. We know, however, that patients have received the wrong 
results from some tests. In some cases, the claims associated with 
genetic tests are clearly dubious.
  Last year, Senator Smith chaired a hearing by the Special Committee 
on Aging on a GAO report, which found that some genetic tests sold to 
the public have no scientific merit. Our legislation will give health 
providers and patients the best possible information about the 
analytical and clinical validity of all clinical tests. It is our 
responsibility to guarantee that such tests are accurate and reliable, 
and I urge our colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 737. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to 
measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and 
voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the 
States; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President. I am proud to introduce the Voter Advocate 
and Democracy Index Act of 2007 with the goal of having the Act help 
inform voters and State officials on how well their States are doing on 
a basic set of procedural standards for making polls accessible to 
voters and making the right to vote as easy to exercise as possible.
  The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate within the 
Election Assistance Commission that would be charged with creating a 
Democracy Index. The Index would rank States according to a system of 
measurable, basic state election practices. With that information, 
States could identify weak spots in their process, and voters could 
push for better performance.
  The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor 
Heather Gerken published this January in Legal Times. It focuses on 
issues that matter to all voters: How long did voters spend in line? 
How many ballots got discarded? How often did the balloting machinery 
break down?
  The Act would constitute an important first step toward improving the 
health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that 
have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters 
improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of 
process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we 
will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that 
paralyzed the Nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But 
to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, 
nonpartisan, objective information.
  This bill would provide that information. Some voters have personally 
experienced problems in casting a ballot; others see stories on the 
news about election results tainted by malfunctioning machines, 
inadequate registration lists, or poorly trained administrators. I 
believe that these issues are merely the visible symptoms of a deeper, 
systemic problem in the way our election system is run. But voters need 
a yardstick for evaluating the full extent of the problem and what 
needs to be done to improve the election process in their State.
  Toward that end, this bill would charge the Office of the Voter 
Advocate with creating the Democracy Index and specifying the success 
or failure of States in meeting the criteria that the index is going to 
measure. The bill also ensures that the Office of the Voter Advocate 
will draw upon the experience and knowledge of experts and citizens in 
thinking about what information voters would want to know in evaluating 
the health of their State's election process. And it requires the 
Office to establish a pilot program for the 2008 election, use the 
lessons learned from that experience, and make the Index a reality 
nationwide as soon as possible.
  The Democracy Index would encourage healthy competition among States 
to improve their systems. It would allow states to engage in healthy 
experimentation about how best to run an election. In short, the 
Democracy Index will empower voters and encourage States to work toward 
the goal we all share: an election system that makes us all proud.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Coleman):
  S. 738. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Office 
of International Trade, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as I come to the floor today to speak, 
there are countless small businesses in the Gulf Coast, right this 
moment, that are open for business. The fact that they are open at all 
is a testament to the hard work and resolve of their owners, along with 
the focus and commitment of community leaders, state and local 
officials, as well as Congress and the White House. This is because, as 
you know, the Gulf Coast was devastated in 2005 by two of the most 
powerful storms to ever hit the United States in recorded history--
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  I strongly believe that we cannot rebuild the Gulf Coast without our 
small businesses. Small businesses not only create jobs and pay taxes--
they provide the innovation and energy that drives our economy. In 
fact, before Katrina and Rita hit, there were more than 95,000 small 
businesses in Louisiana, employing about 850,000 people--more than half 
of my State's workforce. About 39,000 of these businesses have yet to 
resume normal operations so I intend to do everything I can in the 
coming months to get them back up and running.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation to first help small 
businesses in the Gulf recover, as well as to provide assistance to 
businesses in other parts of the country. In particular, this 
legislation is focused on promoting exports by U.S. small businesses. 
Small businesses are important players in international trade, which is 
reflected in the fact that small businesses represent that 96 percent 
of all exporters of goods and services. In Louisiana, we have about 
2,000 declared exporters. However, there are many more businesses in my 
State who conduct

[[Page 5181]]

Internet sales overseas, as well as those who focus operations on 
domestic sales but have some international buyers as well. These 
businesses are exporters but in many cases they do not even realize it!
  Given the importance of these exporters to my state and to the rest 
of the country, I would like to improve their competitive edge in the 
international market and give them every resource they need to succeed. 
Certainly my first priority is to provide additional assistance to 
affected Gulf Coast small businesses. As they continue to recover, one 
of the main issues being faced by our small business is accessing 
capital. Our exporters are no different. They need help accessing 
export financing to cover export-related costs such as purchasing 
equipment, purchasing inventory, or financing production costs. This 
legislation would help strengthen the SBA International Finance 
Specialist program to help these small businesses access export 
financing.
  Today I am introducing the Small Business International Trade 
Enhancements Act of 2007 to give all small businesses the opportunity 
to expand their operations into international markets. I am pleased to 
have Senator Kerry, the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, 
as well as Senator Snowe, the Ranking Member, and my colleague Senator 
Coleman, as cosponsors.
  As I mentioned we have 2,000 exporters in Louisiana. However, there 
are many other businesses who are exporters, but they do not even 
realize it. They may have overseas Internet sales, or they focus 
operations on domestic sales, but have some international buyers as 
well. In fact, the Small Business Administration has stated that over 
96 percent of all exporters of goods and services are small businesses.
  Given the importance of these exporters to my State and to the rest 
of the Gulf Coast, I would like to improve their competitive edge in 
the international market and give them every resource they need to 
succeed. As they continue to recover, one of the main issues being 
faced by our small business is accessing capital. Our exporters are no 
different. They need help accessing export financing to cover export-
related costs such as purchasing equipment, purchasing inventory, or 
financing production costs.
  To assist these businesses, fifteen SBA Finance Specialists operate 
out of 100 U.S. Export Assistance Centers administered by the 
Department of Commerce around the country. That is a record staffing 
low for this program, down from a peak of 22 Finance Specialists in 
2000. To ensure that all smaller exporters nationwide will continue to 
have access to export financing, this bill establishes a floor of 18 
International Finance Specialists. I believe this will send a signal to 
our exporters that, despite current budget deficits, we are committed 
to our exporters and want to provide them with the necessary resources 
to compete internationally.
  I realize that the need for export financing is not just limited to 
the Gulf Coast. There are small businesses nationwide that are looking 
to find markets overseas. One tool that they can use is the SBA's 
International Trade Loan (ITL) program. International Trade Loans can 
help exporters develop and expand overseas markets; upgrade equipment 
or facilities; and assist exporters that are being hurt by import 
competition. Exporters can borrow up to $2 million, with $1,750,000 
guaranteed by SBA.
  However, as currently structured these loans are not user-friendly to 
lenders or borrowers and, as a result, are underutilized. Let me 
explain what I mean. First, the $250,000 difference between the loan 
cap and the guarantee requires borrowers to take out a second SBA loan 
to take full advantage of the $2 million guarantee. ITLs can only be 
used to acquire fixed assets and not working capital, a common need for 
exporters. Furthermore, ITLs do not have the same collateral or 
refinancing requirements as SBA 7(a) loans. Because of these issues, 
lenders do not use these loans.
  This legislation will also reduce the paperwork by increasing the 
maximum loan guarantee to $2,750,000 and the loan cap to $3,670,000 to 
bring it more in line with the 7(a) program. The bill also creates a 
more flexible ITL by setting out that working capital is an eligible 
use for loan proceeds, in addition to making the ITL consistent with 
regular 7(a) loans by allowing the same collateral and refinancing 
terms as with 7(a).
  The SBA International Trade and Export Loans are valuable tools for 
exporters but they are useless if there is no one to assist borrowers 
with identifying which loans are right for them. Local lending 
institutions that specialize in export financing can help but at a cost 
over less than $2 million per year, the current group of Finance 
Specialists has obtained bank financing for more than $10 billion in 
U.S. exports since 1999. The $10 billion in export sales financed by 
these specialists helped to create over 140,000 new, high-paying U.S. 
jobs.
  The Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2007 is an 
important first step, not just for exporters in the Gulf Coast, but 
also for small businesses nationwide who are looking to open markets 
overseas. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation since it 
will help our exporters in the Gulf Coast recover and also give small 
businesses nationwide more options when they are seeking export 
financing.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 738

       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 ``Small Business International 
     Trade Enhancements Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR 
                   FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 22(a) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 649(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The head of the Office shall be the Associate 
     Administrator for International Trade, who shall be 
     responsible to the Administrator.''.
       (b) Authority for Additional Associate Administrator.--
     Section 4(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     633(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``five Associate 
     Administrators'' and inserting ``Associate Administrators''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``One of the 
     Associate Administrators shall be the Associate Administrator 
     for International Trade, who shall be the head of the Office 
     of International Trade established under section 22.''.
       (c) Discharge of Administration International Trade 
     Responsibilities.--Section 22 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 649) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Discharge of Administration International Trade 
     Responsibilities.--The Administrator shall ensure that--
       ``(1) the responsibilities of the Administration regarding 
     international trade are carried out through the Associate 
     Administrator for International Trade;
       ``(2) the Associate Administrator for International Trade 
     has sufficient resources to carry out such responsibilities; 
     and
       ``(3) the Associate Administrator for International Trade 
     has direct supervision and control over the staff of the 
     Office of International Trade, and over any employee of the 
     Administration whose principal duty station is a United 
     States Export Assistance Center or any successor entity.''.
       (d) Role of Associate Administrator in Carrying Out 
     International Trade Policy.--Section 2(b)(1) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631(b)(1)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding subparagraph (A)--
       (1) by inserting ``the Administrator of'' before ``the 
     Small Business Administration''; and
       (2) by inserting ``through the Associate Administrator for 
     International Trade, and'' before ``in cooperation with''.
       (e) Technical Amendment.--Section 22(c)(5) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649(c)(5)) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting a semicolon.
       (f) Effective Date.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration shall appoint an Associate 
     Administrator for International Trade under section 22 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649), as amended by this 
     section.

     SEC. 3. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

       Section 22 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649) is 
     amended--

[[Page 5182]]

       (1) by striking ``SEC. 22. (a) There'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 22. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There''.
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(referred to in this 
     section as the `Office'),'' after ``Trade'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``The Office'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Trade Distribution Network.--The Office, including 
     United States Export Assistance Centers (referred to as `one-
     stop shops' in section 2301(b)(8) of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4721(b)(8)) and as 
     `export centers' in this section)''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) assist in maintaining a distribution network using 
     regional and local offices of the Administration, the small 
     business development center network, the women's business 
     center network, and export centers for--
       ``(A) trade promotion;
       ``(B) trade finance;
       ``(C) trade adjustment;
       ``(D) trade remedy assistance; and
       ``(E) trade data collection.'';
       (4) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively;
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(1) establish annual goals for the Office relating to--
       ``(A) enhancing the exporting capability of small business 
     concerns and small manufacturers;
       ``(B) facilitating technology transfers;
       ``(C) enhancing programs and services to assist small 
     business concerns and small manufacturers to compete 
     effectively and efficiently against foreign entities;
       ``(D) increasing the access to capital by small business 
     concerns;
       ``(E) disseminating information concerning Federal, State, 
     and private programs and initiatives; and
       ``(F) ensuring that the interests of small business 
     concerns are adequately represented in trade negotiations;'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``mechanism for'' and all that follows through ``(D)'' and 
     inserting the following: ``mechanism for--
       ``(A) identifying subsectors of the small business 
     community with strong export potential;
       ``(B) identifying areas of demand in foreign markets;
       ``(C) prescreening foreign buyers for commercial and credit 
     purposes; and
       ``(D)''; and
       (D) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``full-time export development specialists 
     to each Administration regional office and assigning''; and
       (II) by striking ``office. Such specialists'' and inserting 
     ``office and providing each Administration regional office 
     with a full-time export development specialist, who'';

       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting a semicolon; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) participate jointly with employees of the Office in 
     an annual training program that focuses on current small 
     business needs for exporting; and
       ``(G) jointly develop and conduct training programs for 
     exporters and lenders in cooperation with the United States 
     Export Assistance Centers, the Department of Commerce, small 
     business development centers, and other relevant Federal 
     agencies.'';
       (5) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``Export Financing Programs.--'' after 
     ``(d)'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as clauses 
     (i) through (v), respectively, and adjusting the margins 
     accordingly;
       (C) by striking ``The Office shall work in cooperation'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Office shall work in cooperation''; 
     and
       (D) by striking ``To accomplish this goal, the Office shall 
     work'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Trade financial specialist.--To accomplish the goal 
     established under paragraph (1), the Office shall--
       ``(A) designate at least 1 individual within the 
     Administration as a trade financial specialist to oversee 
     international loan programs and assist Administration 
     employees with trade finance issues; and
       ``(B) work'';
       (6) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Trade Remedies.--'' 
     after ``(e)'';
       (7) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Reporting Requirement.--The Office shall submit an 
     annual report to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives that contains--
       ``(1) a description of the progress of the Office in 
     implementing the requirements of this section;
       ``(2) the destinations of travel by Office staff and 
     benefits to the Administration and to small business concerns 
     therefrom; and
       ``(3) a description of the participation by the Office in 
     trade negotiations.'';
       (8) in subsection (g), by inserting  ``Studies.--'' after 
     ``(g)''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Export Assistance Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the period beginning on October 
     1, 2006, and ending on September 30, 2009, the Administrator 
     shall ensure that the number of full-time equivalent 
     employees of the Office assigned to the one-stop shops 
     referred to in section 2301(b) of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4721 (b)) is not less 
     than the number of such employees so assigned on January 1, 
     2003.
       ``(2) Priority of placement.--Priority shall be given, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, to placing employees of the 
     Administration at any Export Assistance Center that--
       ``(A) had an Administration employee assigned to such 
     Center before January 2003; and
       ``(B) has not had an Administration employee assigned to 
     such Center during the period beginning January 2003, and 
     ending on the date of enactment of this subsection, either 
     through retirement or reassignment.
       ``(3) Needs of exporters.--The Administrator shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, strategically assign 
     Administration employees to Export Assistance Centers, based 
     on the needs of exporters.
       ``(4) Goals.--The Office shall work with the Department of 
     Commerce and the Export-Import Bank to establish shared 
     annual goals for the Export Centers.
       ``(5) Oversight.--The Office shall designate an individual 
     within the Administration to oversee all activities conducted 
     by Administration employees assigned to Export Centers.''.

     SEC. 4. INTERNATIONAL TRADE LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(a)(3)(B) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``$1,750,000, of which not more than $1,250,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,750,000 (or if the gross loan amount would 
     exceed $3,670,000), of which not more than $2,000,000''.
       (b) Working Capital.--Section 7(a)(16)(A) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``in--
     '' and inserting ``--'';
       (2) in clause (i)--
       (A) by inserting ``in'' after ``(i)''; and
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by inserting ``in'' after ``(ii)''; and
       (B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) by providing working capital.''.
       (c) Collateral.--Section 7(a)(16)(B) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Each loan'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), each 
     loan''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Exception.--A loan under this paragraph may be 
     secured by a second lien position on the property or 
     equipment financed by the loan or on other assets of the 
     small business concern, if the Administrator determines such 
     lien provides adequate assurance of the payment of such 
     loan.''.
       (d) Refinancing.--Section 7(a)(16)(A)(ii) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(A)(ii)), as amended by 
     this section, is amended by inserting ``, including any debt 
     that qualifies for refinancing under any other provision of 
     this subsection'' before the semicolon.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kerry, 
        Ms. Cantwell, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 739. A bill to provide disadvantaged children with access to 
dental services; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation 
entitled the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2007, along 
with several of my colleagues. This legislation is designed to improve 
the access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's 
children through Medicaid, through the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, SCHIP, through the Indian Health Services, or IHS, 
and also through our Nation's safety net of community health centers.
  The oral health problems facing children in this country are 
widespread. They are closely associated with poverty. Tooth decay 
remains the single most common childhood disease nationwide. Although 
poor children are more than twice as likely to have cavities as 
wealthier children, experts report that they are far less likely to 
receive treatment. The dramatic consequences of this lack of oral 
health

[[Page 5183]]

care were underscored yesterday in the Washington Post article 
discussing the death of 12-year-old Deamonte Driver from complications 
arising from a lack of dental care. I know Senator Cardin has spoken on 
this same tragic incident.
  A little over a month ago, Deamonte Driver came home complaining of a 
toothache. Today, that young man is dead. What began as a simple 
toothache developed into an abscessed tooth and, eventually, a brain 
infection that killed him. Although his family attempted to access 
care, they could not acquire meaningful oral health services either 
when they were on the Medicaid Program or while they were uninsured.
  While this young man's death is shocking, the lack of access to 
dental care that it reflects is not unusual. The inspector general of 
the Department of Health and Human Services reported that only 18 
percent of the children who are eligible for Medicaid actually received 
even a single preventive dental service. The inspector general also 
reports that there is no State in the Union that provides preventive 
services to more than 50 percent of the eligible children. The factors 
are complex, but the primary one is due to the limited participation by 
dentists in the Medicaid Program because of the very low reimbursement 
rates that are provided. Such issues played a central role in the death 
of this young man.
  The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2007 provides a 
comprehensive strategy to address the underlying oral health issues 
that led to Deamonte's death. First, the legislation provides grants to 
States to improve dental services to children enrolled in Medicaid and 
SCHIP. Such grants will not only assure improved delivery of dental 
services to children but also improved payment rates for dental 
services that are provided through those two programs. The bill will 
also include grants to federally qualified health centers, to county 
and local public health departments, to dental schools, Indian tribes, 
tribal corporation organizations, and others to increase the 
availability of primary dental care services in underserved areas.
  The bill also provides critical bonus payments to dentists within the 
Indian Health Service who commit to work there for 2, 3, or 4 years. 
The legislation also ensures SCHIP funds will be utilized to provide 
coverage for dental services for low-income children who have access to 
limited health insurance coverage that does not include dental 
services. This is known as wraparound coverage, and it is crucial that 
we provide for this.
  In addition, the bill would make important changes to the way in 
which dental residents are counted for Medicare graduate medical 
education or GME purposes to incentivize dental schools to train a 
larger number of dentists.
  Finally, the legislation also creates a comprehensive oral health 
initiative aimed at reducing oral health disparities for vulnerable 
populations such as low-income children and children with developmental 
disabilities. Such activities will be administered through the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease 
Control, and a newly established chief dental officer for Medicaid and 
SCHIP. Such activities will also include school-based dental sealant 
programs as well as basic oral health promotion.
  I introduce the legislation in the hope that this Congress will act 
this year to ensure that Deamonte's death does not repeat itself, that 
no more of America's children will suffer needlessly or even, as in 
this case, die as a result of a lack of access to meaningful oral 
health care. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
  I would like to thank the American Dental Association, the American 
Dental Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatric 
Dentistry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., 
the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Dental 
Hygienists' Association, and the Children's Dental Health Project for 
their outstanding support and/or their technical advice on this 
legislation. This bill is a result of their outstanding work.
  In particular, I want to thank Dr. Burt Edelstein, Libby Mullin, and 
Ann De Biasi of the Children's Dental Health Project for their vast 
knowledge and technical assistance on this issue. I want to thank Judy 
Sherman of the American Dental Association, Myla Moss and Jack Bresch 
of the American Dental Education Association, Dr. Herber Simmons and 
Scott Litch of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Karen 
Sealander of the American Dental Hygienists' Association, Dr. Jim 
Richeson and Judy Kloss Bynum of the Academy of General Dentistry, Dr. 
Stephen Corbin of Special Olympics, Inc., and Dan Hawkins, Chris 
Koppen, and Roger Schwartz of the National Association of Community 
Health Centers, Inc., for their valuable insight, technical advice, and 
continued support for this legislation. I look forward to working with 
them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to oral health care 
for our children.
  In addition to those organizations, I would like to thank the 
following groups for their support of the bill, whether in the past 
session of Congress or this year. They include: the Academy of General 
Dentistry, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy 
of Periodontology, American Association of Dental Examiners, American 
Association of Dental Research, American Association of Endodontists, 
American Association of Public Health Dentistry, American Association 
of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of 
Orthodontists, American Association of Women Dentists, American College 
of Dentists, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Dental 
Trade Association, American Public Health Association, American Society 
of Dentistry for Children, American Student Dental Association, 
Association of Clinicians for the Underserved, Association of Maternal 
and Child Health Programs, Association of State and Territorial Dental 
Directors, Dental Dealers of America, Dental Manufacturers of America, 
Inc., Family Voices, Hispanic Dental Association, International College 
of Dentists--USA, March of Dimes, National Association of City and 
County Health Officers, National Association of Local Boards of Health, 
National Dental Association, National Health Law Program, New Mexico 
Department of Health, Partnership for Prevention, Society of American 
Indian Dentists, Special Care Dentistry, and United Cerebral Palsy 
Associations.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2007]

                         For Want of a Dentist

                             (By Mary Otto)

       Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.
       A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.
       If his mother had been insured.
       If his family had not lost its Medicaid.
       If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.
       If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for 
     his brother, who had six rotted teeth.
       By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, 
     the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, 
     doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of 
     hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.
       Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which 
     could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-
     overlooked concern in the debate over universal health 
     coverage: dental care.
       Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others 
     travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid 
     patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some, 
     including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but 
     have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.
       In spite of efforts to change the system, fewer than one in 
     three children in Maryland's Medicaid program received any 
     dental service at all in 2005, the latest year for which 
     figures are available from the Federal Centers for Medicare 
     and Medicaid Services.
       The figures were worse elsewhere in the region. In the 
     District, 29.3 percent got treatment, and in Virginia, 24.3 
     percent were

[[Page 5184]]

     treated, although all three jurisdictions say they have done 
     a better job reaching children in recent years.
       ``I certainly hope the state agencies responsible for 
     making sure these children have dental care take note so that 
     Deamonte didn't die in vain,'' said Laurie Norris, a lawyer 
     for the Baltimore-based Public Justice Center who tried to 
     help the Driver family. ``They know there is a problem, and 
     they have not devoted adequate resources to solving it.''
       Maryland officials emphasize that the delivery of basic 
     care has improved greatly since 1997, when the state 
     instituted a managed care program, and 1998, when legislation 
     that provided more money and set standards for access to 
     dental care for poor children was enacted.
       About 900 of the state's 5,500 dentists accept Medicaid 
     patients, said Arthur Fridley, last year's president of the 
     Maryland State Dental Association. Referring patients to 
     specialists can be particularly difficult.
       Fewer than 16 percent of Maryland's Medicaid children 
     received restorative services--such as filling cavities--in 
     2005, the most recent year for which figures are available.
       For families such as the Drivers, the systemic problems are 
     often compounded by personal obstacles: lack of 
     transportation, bouts of homelessness and erratic telephone 
     and mail service.
       The Driver children have never received routine dental 
     attention, said their mother, Alyce Driver. The bakery, 
     construction and home health-care jobs she has held have not 
     provided insurance. The children's Medicaid coverage had 
     temporarily lapsed at the time Deamonte was hospitalized. And 
     even with Medicaid's promise of dental care, the problem, she 
     said, was finding it.
       When Deamonte got sick, his mother had not realized that 
     his tooth had been bothering him. Instead, she was focusing 
     on his younger brother, 10-year-old DaShawn, who ``complains 
     about his teeth all the time,'' she said.
       DaShawn saw a dentist a couple of years ago, but the 
     dentist discontinued the treatments, she said, after the boy 
     squirmed too much in the chair. Then the family went through 
     a crisis and spent some time in an Adelphi homeless shelter. 
     From there, three of Driver's sons went to stay with their 
     grandparents in a two-bedroom mobile home in Clinton.
       By September, several of DaShawn's teeth had become 
     abscessed. Driver began making calls about the boy's coverage 
     but grew frustrated. She turned to Norris, who was working 
     with homeless families in Prince George's.
       Norris and her staff also ran into barriers: They said they 
     made more than two dozen calls before reaching an official at 
     the Driver family's Medicaid provider and a state supervising 
     nurse who helped them find a dentist.
       On Oct. 5, DaShawn saw Arthur Fridley, who cleaned the 
     boy's teeth, took an X-ray and referred him to an oral 
     surgeon. But the surgeon could not see him until Nov. 21, and 
     that would be only for a consultation. Driver said she 
     learned that DaShawn would need six teeth extracted and made 
     an appointment for the earliest date available: Jan. 16.
       But she had to cancel after learning Jan. 8 that the 
     children had lost their Medicaid coverage a month earlier. 
     She suspects that the paperwork to confirm their eligibility 
     was mailed to the shelter in Adelphi, where they no longer 
     live.
       It was on Jan. 11 that Deamonte came home from school 
     complaining of a headache. At Southern Maryland Hospital 
     Center, his mother said, he got medicine for a headache, 
     sinusitis and a dental abscess. But the next day, he was much 
     sicker.
       Eventually, he was rushed to Children's Hospital, where he 
     underwent emergency brain surgery. He began to have seizures 
     and had a second operation. The problem tooth was extracted.
       After more than 2 weeks of care at Children's Hospital, the 
     Clinton seventh-grader began undergoing 6 weeks of additional 
     medical treatment as well as physical and occupational 
     therapy at another hospital. He seemed to be mending slowly, 
     doing math problems and enjoying visits with his brothers and 
     teachers from his school, the Foundation School in Largo.
       On Saturday, their last day together, Deamonte refused to 
     eat but otherwise appeared happy, his mother said. They 
     played cards and watched a show on television, lying together 
     in his hospital bed. But after she left him that evening, he 
     called her.
       ``Make sure you pray before you go to sleep,'' he told her.
       The next morning at about 6, she got another call, this 
     time from the boy's grandmother. Deamonte was unresponsive. 
     She rushed back to the hospital.
       ``When I got there, my baby was gone,'' recounted his 
     mother.
       She said doctors are still not sure what happened to her 
     son. His death certificate listed two conditions associated 
     with brain infections: ``meningoencephalitis'' and ``subdural 
     empyema.''
       In spite of such modern innovations as the fluoridation of 
     drinking water, tooth decay is still the single most common 
     childhood disease nationwide, five times as common as asthma, 
     experts say. Poor children are more than twice as likely to 
     have cavities as their more affluent peers, research shows, 
     but far less likely to get treatment.
       Serious and costly medical consequences are ``not 
     uncommon,'' said Norman Tinanoff, chief of pediatric 
     dentistry at the University of Maryland Dental School in 
     Baltimore. For instance, Deamonte's bill for two weeks at 
     Children's alone was expected to be between $200,000 and 
     $250,000.
       The federal government requires states to provide oral 
     health services to children through Medicaid programs, but 
     the shortage of dentists who will treat indigent patients 
     remains a major barrier to care, according to the National 
     Conference of State Legislatures.
       Access is worst in rural areas, where some families travel 
     hours for dental care, Tinanoff said. In the Maryland General 
     Assembly this year, lawmakers are considering a bill that 
     would set aside $2 million a year for the next three years to 
     expand public clinics where dental care remains a rarity for 
     the poor.
       Providing such access, Tinanoff and others said, eventually 
     pays for itself, sparing children the pain and expense of a 
     medical crisis.
       Reimbursement rates for dentists remain low nationally, 
     although Maryland, Virginia and the District have increased 
     their rates in recent years.
       Dentists also cite administrative frustrations dealing with 
     the Medicaid bureaucracy and the difficulties of serving 
     poor, often transient patients, a study by the state 
     legislatures conference found.
       ``Whatever we've got is broke,'' Fridley said. ``It has 
     nothing to do with access to care for these children.''
                                  ____


                                 S. 739

       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 ``Children's 
     Dental Health Improvement Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents

TITLE I--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID 
                               AND SCHIP

Sec. 101. Grants to improve the provision of dental services under 
              medicaid and SCHIP
Sec. 102. State option to provide wrap-around SCHIP coverage to 
              children who have other health coverage

    TITLE II--CORRECTING GME PAYMENTS FOR DENTAL RESIDENCY TRAINING 
                                PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Limitation on the application of the 1-year lag in the 
              indirect medical education ratio (IME) changes and the 3-
              year rolling average for counting interns and residents 
              for IME and direct graduate medical education (D-GME) 
              payments under the medicare program

   TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER 
  COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, AND THE INDIAN 
                             HEALTH SERVICE

Sec. 301. Grants to improve the provision of dental health services 
              through community health centers and public health 
              departments
Sec. 302. Dental officer multiyear retention bonus for the Indian 
              Health Service
Sec. 303. Demonstration projects to increase access to pediatric dental 
              services in underserved areas
Sec. 304. Technical correction

   TITLE IV--IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION 
                                PROGRAMS

Sec. 401. Oral health initiative
Sec. 402. CDC reports
Sec. 403. Early childhood caries
Sec. 404. School-based dental sealant program
Sec. 405. Basic oral health promotion

TITLE I--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID 
                               AND SCHIP

     SEC. 101. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES 
                   UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 511. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL 
                   SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       ``(a) Authority to Make Grants.--In addition to any other 
     payments made under this title to a State, the Secretary 
     shall award grants to States that satisfy the requirements of 
     subsection (b) to improve the provision of dental services to 
     children who are enrolled in a State plan under title XIX or 
     a State child health plan under title XXI (in this section, 
     collectively referred to as the `State plans').
       ``(b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible for a grant 
     under this section, a State shall provide the Secretary with 
     the following assurances:
       ``(1) Improved service delivery.--The State shall have a 
     plan to improve the delivery of dental services to children, 
     including

[[Page 5185]]

     children with special health care needs, who are enrolled in 
     the State plans, including providing outreach and 
     administrative case management, improving collection and 
     reporting of claims data, and providing incentives, in 
     addition to raising reimbursement rates, to increase provider 
     participation.
       ``(2) Adequate payment rates.--The State has provided for 
     payment under the State plans for dental services for 
     children at levels consistent with the market-based rates and 
     sufficient enough to enlist providers to treat children in 
     need of dental services.
       ``(3) Ensured access.--The State shall ensure it will make 
     dental services available to children enrolled in the State 
     plans to the same extent as such services are available to 
     the general population of the State.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds provided under this section may be 
     used to provide administrative resources (such as program 
     development, provider training, data collection and analysis, 
     and research-related tasks) to assist States in providing and 
     assessing services that include preventive and therapeutic 
     dental care regimens.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Funds provided under this section may 
     not be used for payment of direct dental, medical, or other 
     services or to obtain Federal matching funds under any 
     Federal program.
       ``(d) Application.--A State shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary for a grant under this section in such form and 
     manner and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this 
     section $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       ``(f) Application of Other Provisions of Title.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     other provisions of this title shall not apply to a grant 
     made under this section.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions of this title 
     shall apply to a grant made under subsection (a) to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to 
     allotments made under section 502(c):
       ``(A) Section 504(b)(6) (relating to prohibition on 
     payments to excluded individuals and entities).
       ``(B) Section 504(c) (relating to the use of funds for the 
     purchase of technical assistance).
       ``(C) Section 504(d) (relating to a limitation on 
     administrative expenditures).
       ``(D) Section 506 (relating to reports and audits), but 
     only to the extent determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate for grants made under this section.
       ``(E) Section 507 (relating to penalties for false 
     statements).
       ``(F) Section 508 (relating to nondiscrimination).
       ``(G) Section 509 (relating to the administration of the 
     grant program).''.

     SEC. 102. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE WRAP-AROUND SCHIP COVERAGE 
                   TO CHILDREN WHO HAVE OTHER HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) SCHIP.--
       (A) State option to provide wrap-around coverage.--Section 
     2110(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)) is 
     amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ``, subject to 
     paragraph (5),'' after ``under title XIX or''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) State option to provide wrap-around coverage.--A 
     State may waive the requirement of paragraph (1)(C) that a 
     targeted low-income child may not be covered under a group 
     health plan or under health insurance coverage, if the State 
     satisfies the conditions described in subsection (c)(8). The 
     State may waive such requirement in order to provide--
       ``(A) dental services;
       ``(B) cost-sharing protection; or
       ``(C) all services.
     In waiving such requirement, a State may limit the 
     application of the waiver to children whose family income 
     does not exceed a level specified by the State, so long as 
     the level so specified does not exceed the maximum income 
     level otherwise established for other children under the 
     State child health plan.''.
       (B) Conditions described.--Section 2105(c) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(8) Conditions for provision of wrap-around coverage.--
     For purposes of section 2110(b)(5), the conditions described 
     in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) Income eligibility.--The State child health plan 
     (whether implemented under title XIX or this XXI)--
       ``(i) has the highest income eligibility standard permitted 
     under this title as of January 1, 2008;
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the 
     acceptance of applications for children; and
       ``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who 
     apply for and meet eligibility standards.
       ``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children 
     whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty 
     line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation, 
     waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of 
     such children for child health assistance under such State 
     plan.
       ``(C) No more favorable treatment.--The State child health 
     plan may not provide more favorable coverage of dental 
     services to the children covered under section 2110(b)(5) 
     than to children otherwise covered under this title.''.
       (C) State option to waive waiting period.--Section 
     2102(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397bb(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) at State option, may not apply a waiting period in 
     the case of a child described in section 2110(b)(5), if the 
     State satisfies the requirements of section 2105(c)(8).''.
       (2) Application of enhanced match under medicaid.--Section 
     1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), in the fourth sentence, by striking 
     ``or subsection (u)(3)'' and inserting ``(u)(3), or (u)(4)''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (u)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures 
     described in this paragraph are expenditures for items and 
     services for children described in section 2110(b)(5), but 
     only in the case of a State that satisfies the requirements 
     of section 2105(c)(8).''.
       (3) Application of secondary payor provisions.--Section 
     2107(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397gg(e)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (E), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Section 1902(a)(25) (relating to coordination of 
     benefits and secondary payor provisions) with respect to 
     children covered under a waiver described in section 
     2110(b)(5).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2008, and shall apply to 
     child health assistance and medical assistance provided on or 
     after that date.

    TITLE II--CORRECTING GME PAYMENTS FOR DENTAL RESIDENCY TRAINING 
                                PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. LIMITATION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE 1-YEAR LAG IN 
                   THE INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION RATIO (IME) 
                   CHANGES AND THE 3-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 
                   COUNTING INTERNS AND RESIDENTS FOR IME AND 
                   DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION (D-GME) 
                   PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) IME Ratio and Rolling Average.--Section 
     1886(d)(5)(B)(vi) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(d)(5)(B)(vi)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``For cost reporting periods 
     beginning during fiscal years beginning on or after October 
     1, 2007, subclauses (I) and (II) shall be applied only with 
     respect to a hospital's approved medical residency training 
     program in the fields of allopathic medicine and osteopathic 
     medicine.''.
       (b) D-GME Rolling Average.--Section 1886(h)(4)(G) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(G)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) Application for fy 2008 and subsequent years.--For 
     cost reporting periods beginning during fiscal years 
     beginning on or after October 1, 2007, clauses (i) through 
     (iii) shall be applied only with respect to a hospital's 
     approved medical residency training program in the fields of 
     allopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine.''.

   TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER 
  COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, AND THE INDIAN 
                             HEALTH SERVICE

     SEC. 301. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL HEALTH 
                   SERVICES THROUGH COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND 
                   PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS.

       Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by insert 
     before section 330, the following:

     ``SEC. 329. GRANT PROGRAM TO EXPAND THE AVAILABILITY OF 
                   SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, shall establish a 
     program under which the Secretary may award grants to 
     eligible entities and eligible individuals to expand the 
     availability of primary dental care services in dental health 
     professional shortage areas or medically underserved areas.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section an entity--
       ``(A) shall be--
       ``(i) a health center receiving funds under section 330 or 
     designated as a Federally qualified health center;
       ``(ii) a county or local public health department, if 
     located in a federally-designated dental health professional 
     shortage area;

[[Page 5186]]

       ``(iii) an Indian tribe or tribal organization (as defined 
     in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b));
       ``(iv) a dental education program accredited by the 
     Commission on Dental Accreditation; or
       ``(v) a community-based program whose child service 
     population is made up of at least 33 percent of children who 
     are eligible children, including at least 25 percent of such 
     children being children with mental retardation or related 
     developmental disabilities, unless specific documentation of 
     a lack of need for access by this sub-population is 
     established; and
       ``(B) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including 
     information concerning dental provider capacity to serve 
     individuals with developmental disabilities.
       ``(2) Individuals.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section an individual shall--
       ``(A) be a dental health professional licensed or certified 
     in accordance with the laws of State in which such individual 
     provides dental services;
       ``(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require; and
       ``(C) provide assurances that--
       ``(i) the individual will practice in a federally-
     designated dental health professional shortage area; or
       ``(ii) not less than 25 percent of the patients of such 
     individual are--

       ``(I) receiving assistance under a State plan under title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
       ``(II) receiving assistance under a State plan under title 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.); or
       ``(III) uninsured.

       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Entities.--An entity shall use amounts received under 
     a grant under this section to provide for the increased 
     availability of primary dental services in the areas 
     described in subsection (a). Such amounts may be used to 
     supplement the salaries offered for individuals accepting 
     employment as dentists in such areas.
       ``(2) Individuals.--A grant to an individual under 
     subsection (a) shall be in the form of a $1,000 bonus payment 
     for each month in which such individual is in compliance with 
     the eligibility requirements of subsection (b)(2)(C).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other amounts 
     appropriated under section 330 for health centers, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012 to hire and retain dental health care 
     providers under this section.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Of the amount appropriated for a 
     fiscal year under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use--
       ``(A) not less than 65 percent of such amount to make 
     grants to eligible entities; and
       ``(B) not more than 35 percent of such amount to make 
     grants to eligible individuals.''.

     SEC. 302. DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR RETENTION BONUS FOR THE 
                   INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.

       (a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service'' 
     includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate 
     dental educational (GDE) training programs while not on 
     active duty in the Indian Health Service and all periods of 
     active duty in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
       (2) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an 
     officer of the Indian Health Service designated as a dental 
     officer.
       (3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service.
       (4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate 
     dental educational (GDE) training program of at least 12 
     months leading to a specialty, including general practice 
     residency (GPR) or an advanced education general dentistry 
     (AEGD).
       (5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental 
     specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service 
     specialty code number.
       (b) Requirements for Bonus.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible dental officer of the Indian 
     Health Service who executes a written agreement to remain on 
     active duty for 2, 3, or 4 years after the completion of any 
     other active duty service commitment to the Indian Health 
     Service may, upon acceptance of the written agreement by the 
     Director, be authorized to receive a dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus under this section. The Director may, based 
     on requirements of the Indian Health Service, decline to 
     offer such a retention bonus to any specialty that is 
     otherwise eligible, or to restrict the length of such a 
     retention bonus contract for a specialty to less than 4 
     years.
       (2) Limitations.--Each annual dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus authorized under this section shall not 
     exceed the following:
       (A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement.
       (B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement.
       (C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
       (c) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     dental officer multiyear retention bonus under this section, 
     a dental officer shall--
       (A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall 
     determine;
       (B) have completed any active duty service commitment of 
     the Indian Health Service incurred for dental education and 
     training or have 8 years of creditable service;
       (C) have completed initial residency training, or be 
     scheduled to complete initial residency training before 
     September 30 of the fiscal year in which the officer enters 
     into a dental officer multiyear retention bonus written 
     service agreement under this section; and
       (D) have a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry or oral 
     and maxillofacial surgery.
       (2) Extension to other officers.--The Director may extend 
     the retention bonus to dental officers other than officers 
     with a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry, as well as to 
     other dental hygienists with a minimum of a baccalaureate 
     degree, based on demonstrated need.
       (d) Termination of Entitlement to Special Pay.--The 
     Director may terminate, with cause, at any time a dental 
     officer's multiyear retention bonus contract under this 
     section. If such a contract is terminated, the unserved 
     portion of the retention bonus contract shall be recouped on 
     a pro rata basis. The Director shall establish regulations 
     that specify the conditions and procedures under which 
     termination may take place. The regulations and conditions 
     for termination shall be included in the written service 
     contract for a dental officer multiyear retention bonus under 
     this section.
       (e) Refunds.--
       (1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for 
     sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section 
     if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus 
     fails to complete the total period of service specified in 
     the contract, as conditions and circumstances warrant.
       (2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the 
     United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to 
     the United States.
       (3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, 
     United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after 
     the termination of a retention bonus contract under this 
     section does not discharge the dental officer who signed such 
     a contract from a debt arising under the contract or under 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 303. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO 
                   PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES IN UNDERSERVED AREAS.

       (a) Authority to Conduct Projects.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, through the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration and the Director of the 
     Indian Health Service, shall establish demonstration projects 
     that are designed to increase access to dental services for 
     children in underserved areas, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 304. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 340G(b)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 256g(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end and inserting ``or''.

   TITLE IV--IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION 
                                PROGRAMS

     SEC. 401. ORAL HEALTH INITIATIVE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish an oral health initiative to reduce 
     the profound disparities in oral health by improving the 
     health status of vulnerable populations, particularly low-
     income children and children with developmental disabilities, 
     to the level of health status that is enjoyed by the majority 
     of Americans.
       (b) Activities.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall, through the oral health initiative--
       (1) carry out activities to improve intra- and inter-agency 
     collaborations, including activities to identify, engage, and 
     encourage existing Federal and State programs to maximize 
     their potential to address oral health;
       (2) carry out activities to encourage public-private 
     partnerships to engage private sector communities of interest 
     (including health professionals, educators, State 
     policymakers, foundations, business, and the public) in 
     partnerships that promote oral health and dental care;
       (3) carry out activities to reduce the disease burden in 
     high risk populations through the application of best-science 
     in oral health, including programs such as community water 
     fluoridation and dental sealants; and
       (4) carry out activities to improve the oral health 
     literacy of the public through school-based education 
     programs.

[[Page 5187]]

       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall--
       (1) through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services, establish the Chief Dental Officer for the 
     medicaid and State children's health insurance programs 
     established under titles XIX and XXI, respectively, of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. 1397aa et seq.);
       (2) through the Administrator of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, establish the Chief Dental Office 
     for all oral health programs within the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration;
       (3) through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, establish the Chief Dental Officer for all 
     oral health programs within such Centers; and
       (4) carry out this section in collaboration with the 
     Administrators and Chief Dental Officers described in 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 402. CDC REPORTS.

       (a) Collection of Data.--The Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, in collaboration with other 
     organizations and agencies, shall collect data through State-
     based oral health surveillance systems describing the dental, 
     craniofacial, and oral health of residents of all 50 States 
     and certain Indian tribes.
       (b) Reports.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall compile and analyze data 
     collection under subsection (a) and annually prepare and 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     concerning the oral health of States and Indian tribes.

     SEC. 403. EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, shall--
       (1) expand existing surveillance activities to include the 
     identification of children at high risk of early childhood 
     caries, including sub-populations such as children with 
     developmental disabilities;
       (2) assist State, local, and tribal health agencies and 
     departments in collecting, analyzing and disseminating data 
     on early childhood caries; and
       (3) provide for the development of public health nursing 
     programs and public health education programs on early 
     childhood caries prevention.
       (b) Appropriateness of Activities.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall carry out programs and activities 
     under subsection (a) in a culturally appropriate manner with 
     respect to populations at risk of early childhood caries.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each fiscal year.

     SEC. 404. SCHOOL-BASED DENTAL SEALANT PROGRAM.

       Section 317M(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247b-14(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and school-linked'' 
     after ``school-based'';
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and school-linked'' after ``school-
     based''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive funds under 
     paragraph (1), an entity shall--
       ``(A) prepare and submit to the State or Indian tribe an 
     application at such time, in such manner and containing such 
     information as the State or Indian tribe may require; and
       ``(B) be a--
       ``(i) public elementary or secondary school--

       ``(I) that is located in an urban area in which more than 
     50 percent of the student population is participating in 
     Federal or State free or reduced meal programs; or
       ``(II) that is located in a rural area and, with respect to 
     the school district in which the school is located, the 
     district involved has a median income that is at or below 235 
     percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of 
     the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)); 
     or

       ``(ii) public or non-profit organization, including a 
     grantee under section 330 and urban Indian clinics under 
     title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, that is 
     under contract with an elementary or secondary school 
     described in subparagraph (B) to provide dental services to 
     school-age children.''.

     SEC. 405. BASIC ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with 
     dental organizations (including organizations having 
     expertise in the prevention and treatment of oral disease in 
     underserved pediatric populations), shall award grants to 
     States and Indian tribes to improve the basic capacity of 
     such States and tribes to improve the oral health of children 
     and their families.
       (b) Requirements.--A State or Indian tribes shall use 
     amounts received under a grant under this section to conduct 
     one or more of the following activities:
       (1) Establish an oral health plan, policies, effective 
     prevention programs, and accountability measures and systems.
       (2) Establish and guide coalitions, partnerships, and 
     alliances to accomplish the establishment of the plan, 
     policies, programs and systems under paragraph (1).
       (3) Monitor changes in oral disease burden, disparities, 
     and the utilization of preventive services by high-risk 
     populations.
       (4) Identify, test, establish, support, and evaluate 
     prevention interventions to reduce oral health disparities.
       (5) Promote public awareness and education in support of 
     improvements of oral health.
       (6) Support training programs for dental and other health 
     professions needed to strengthen oral health prevention 
     programs.
       (7) Establish, enhance, or expand oral disease prevention 
     and disparity reduction programs.
       (8) Evaluate the progress and effectiveness of the State's 
     oral disease prevention and disparity reduction program.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 740. A bill to establish in the Department of Commerce an Under 
Secretary for United States Direct Investment, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Invest USA 
Act of 2007 with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar.
  Our legislation creates a United States Direct Investment 
Administration, USDIA, within the Department of Commerce, to be led by 
an Under Secretary of Commerce for United States Direct Investment. 
This new agency will coordinate efforts to attract more foreign direct 
investment in the United States, thereby making our economy more 
competitive by encouraging multinational businesses to open new 
facilities or expand existing operations here, rather than elsewhere.
  Specifically, our legislation tasks the new agency with five 
principal duties. First, USDIA will collect and analyze data concerning 
direct investment flows into both the United States and other 
countries.
  Second, USDIA will publish an annual direct investment report for 
Congress. This report sets forth the data that USDIA collects and 
analyzes in the course of its work, identifying best practices in 
attracting direct investment at the Federal, State, and regional 
levels, as well as those used by other advanced industrialized 
countries.
  Third, USDIA will publish an annual direct investment agenda to make 
strategic policy recommendations based on the direct investment report. 
It will also act as the lead agency within a broader interagency Direct 
Investment Promotion Committee, which will advocate and implement 
USDIA's strategic policy recommendations. For example, as part of this 
work, it will create and maintain an internet-accessible database of 
direct investment opportunities in the United States.
  Fourth, the legislation requires USDIA to focus on direct investment 
in critical high-technology industries throughout the course of its 
work.
  The United States continues to be the premier place in the world to 
locate a business. However, in an increasingly globalized world, where 
the factors of production can easily migrate from country to country, 
we can no longer passively rely on our inherent competitive advantages 
alone. We must actively publicize them.
  Many countries, particularly those in Europe, have committed 
significant resources to recruiting foreign direct investment. For 
example, in many cases, our competitors maintain offices in the United 
States, where they regularly meet with American business leaders, 
encouraging them to consider locating facilities in their country.
  Currently, the United States lacks any comparable program to entice 
multinational businesses to invest and create jobs here. Instead, we 
relegate direct investment promotion to economic development agencies 
at the

[[Page 5188]]

State, regional, and local level. Although these local economic 
development agencies make valiant efforts to attract direct investment, 
our lack of a national strategy creates two problems.
  First, too often, these local economic development agencies suffer 
from limited resources, which dwindle even further if the locality is 
suffering from an economic downturn due to a plant closing or for other 
reasons. Second, the dominance of State and local agencies creates the 
impression of an uncoordinated patchwork in the minds of foreign 
business executives. Consequently, State and local economic development 
agencies are too often unable to perform their recruitment missions 
effectively. The Invest USA Act addresses these flaws by creating and 
funding USDIA, which can act as a one-stop shop for multinational 
businesses seeking to establish new operations or expand existing ones.
  Of course, we need to continue to focus on persuading U.S. businesses 
to stay in this country. But we also need to launch a concurrent, 
robust effort to encourage multinational businesses to establish or 
move facilities to our country. The end result is the same: more jobs 
for U.S. workers.
  According to the Organization for International Investment, direct 
investment in the U.S. totaled $128.6 billion in 2005, an increase of 
20 percent from the previous year, and according to the latest 
available Government data, as of December 31, 2004, U.S. subsidiaries 
of foreign multinationals employed approximately 5.1 million American 
workers, or 4.7 percent of the workforce. Moreover, according to the 
latest available Department of Commerce data, average per-worker 
compensation paid by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign multinationals in 
2004 was $63,428, over 32 percent higher than compensation at U.S. 
companies as a whole.
  Senator Lugar and I believe that with a proactive, strategically 
focused effort at the Federal level, we can do even better at 
attracting the best jobs to our country. The Invest USA Act of 2007 
will allow us to do just that.
  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. 740

       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 ``Invest USA Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     United States Direct Investment Administration established 
     under section 4.
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) Critical high-technology industries.--The term 
     ``critical high-technology industries'' means industries 
     involved in technology--
       (A) the development of which will--
       (i) provide a wide array of economic, environmental, 
     energy, and defense-related returns for the United States; 
     and
       (ii) ensure United States economic, environmental, energy, 
     and defense-related welfare; and
       (B) in which the United States has an abiding interest in 
     creating or maintaining secure domestic sources.
       (4) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Commerce.
       (5) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means 
     the Under Secretary of Commerce for United States Direct 
     Investment described in section 4(a).
       (6) United states direct investment promotion committee.--
     The term ``United States Direct Investment Promotion 
     Committee'' means the Interagency United States Direct 
     Investment Promotion Committee established under section 7.
       (7) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the 
     Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.

     SEC. 3. RELATION TO CFIUS.

       The provisions of this Act shall not affect the 
     implementation or application of section 721 of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) and the 
     activities of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
     United States (or any successor committee).

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES DIRECT INVESTMENT 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the Department of 
     Commerce a United States Direct Investment Administration, 
     which shall be headed by an Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     United States Direct Investment. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, and shall be compensated at the rate 
     of pay provided for a position at level III of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Deputy Under Secretary.--There shall be in the 
     Administration a Deputy Under Secretary for United States 
     Direct Investment, who shall be appointed by the President, 
     by and with the advice of the Senate, and shall be 
     compensated at the rate of pay provided for a position at 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Staff.--The Under Secretary may appoint such additional 
     personnel to serve in the Administration as the Under 
     Secretary determines necessary.
       (d) Duties.--The Under Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Economics and Statistics Administration and other offices at 
     the Department, shall--
       (1) collect and analyze data related to the flow of direct 
     investment in the United States and throughout the world, as 
     described in section 5;
       (2) submit to the appropriate congressional committees an 
     annual United States Direct Investment Report, as described 
     in section 6;
       (3) develop and publish an annual United States Direct 
     Investment Agenda;
       (4) assume responsibility as the lead agency for advocating 
     and implementing strategic policies that will increase direct 
     investment in the United States; and
       (5) coordinate with the President regarding implementation 
     of section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2170) and the activities of the Committee on 
     Foreign Investment in the United States (or any successor 
     committee).
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Under Secretary of 
     Commerce for United States Direct Investment.''.
       (2) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Deputy Under Secretary 
     of Commerce for United States Direct Investment.''.

     SEC. 5. ANNUAL DIRECT INVESTMENT REPORT.

       (a) Annual Direct Investment Report.--Not later than 
     October 1, 2008, and annually thereafter, the Under Secretary 
     shall submit a report on the data identified and the analysis 
     described in subsection (b) for the preceding calendar year 
     (which shall be known as the ``Annual Direct Investment 
     Report''). The Report shall be submitted to the President and 
     the appropriate congressional committees.
       (b) Data Identification.--
       (1) In general.--The data identified and analysis for the 
     Report described in subsection (a) means the data identified 
     and analyzed by the Under Secretary of Commerce, in 
     cooperation with the Economic and Statistics Administration 
     and other offices at the Department and with the assistance 
     of other departments and agencies, including the Office of 
     the United States Trade Representative, for the preceding 
     calendar year regarding the following:
       (A) Policies, programs, and practices at the State and 
     regional level designed to attract direct investment.
       (B) The amount of direct investment attracted in each such 
     State and region.
       (C) Policies, programs, and practices in foreign countries 
     designed to attract direct investment, and the amount of 
     direct investment attracted in each such foreign country.
       (D) A comparison of the levels of direct investment 
     attracted in the United States and in foreign countries, 
     including a matrix of inputs affecting the level of direct 
     investment.
       (E) Specific sectors in the United States and in foreign 
     countries in which direct investments are being made, 
     including the specific amounts invested in each sector, with 
     particular emphasis on critical high-technology industries.
       (F) Trends in direct investment, with particular emphasis 
     on critical high-technology industries.
       (G) The best policy and practices at the Federal, State, 
     and regional levels regarding direct investment policy, with 
     specific reference to programs and policies that have the 
     greatest potential to increase direct investment in the 
     United States and enhance United States competitive advantage 
     relative to foreign countries. Particular emphasis should be 
     given to attracting direct investment in critical high-
     technology industries.
       (H) Policies, programs, and practices in foreign countries 
     designed to attract direct investment that are not in 
     compliance with the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed 
     to that Agreement.

[[Page 5189]]

       (2) Certain factors taken into account in making 
     analysis.--In making any analysis under paragraph (1), the 
     Under Secretary shall take into account--
       (A) the relative impact of policies, programs, and 
     practices of foreign governments on United States commerce;
       (B) the availability of information to document the effect 
     of policies, programs, and practices;
       (C) the extent to which such act, policy, or practice is 
     subject to international agreements to which the United 
     States is a party; and
       (D) the impact trends in direct investment have had on--
       (i) the competitiveness of United States industries in the 
     international economy, with particular emphasis on critical 
     high-technology industries;
       (ii) the value of goods and services exported from and 
     imported to the United States;
       (iii) employment in the United States, in particular high-
     wage employment; and
       (iv) the provision of health care, pensions, and other 
     benefits provided by companies based in the United States.
       (c) Assistance of Other Agencies.--
       (1) Furnishing of information.--The head of each department 
     or agency of the executive branch of the Government, 
     including any independent agency, is authorized and directed 
     to furnish to the Under Secretary, upon request, such data, 
     reports, and other information as is necessary for the Under 
     Secretary to carry out the functions under this Act.
       (2) Restrictions on release or use of information.--Nothing 
     in this subsection shall authorize the release of information 
     to, or the use of information by, the Under Secretary in a 
     manner inconsistent with law or any procedure established 
     pursuant thereto.
       (3) Personnel and services.--The head of any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States may detail 
     such personnel and may furnish such services, with or without 
     reimbursement, as the Under Secretary may request to assist 
     in carrying out the functions of the Under Secretary.
       (d) Annual Revisions and Updates.--The Under Secretary 
     shall annually revise and update the Report described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 6. ANNUAL DIRECT INVESTMENT AGENDA.

       (a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 2008, and 
     annually thereafter, the Under Secretary shall submit an 
     agenda based on the data and analysis described in section 5 
     for the preceding calendar year, to the President and the 
     appropriate congressional committees. The agenda shall be 
     known as the ``Annual Direct Investment Agenda'' and shall 
     include--
       (1) an evaluation of the research and development program 
     expenditures being made in the United States with particular 
     emphasis to critical high-technology industries considered 
     essential to United States economic security and necessary 
     for long-term United States economic competitiveness in world 
     markets; and
       (2) proposals that identify the policies, programs, and 
     practices in foreign countries and that the United States 
     should pursue that--
       (A) encourage direct investment in the United States that 
     will enhance the country's competitive advantage relative to 
     foreign countries, with particular emphasis on critical high-
     technology industries;
       (B) enhance the viability of the manufacturing sector in 
     the United States;
       (C) increase opportunities for high-wage jobs and promote 
     high levels of employment;
       (D) encourage economic growth; and
       (E) increase opportunities for the provision of health 
     care, pensions, and other benefits provided by companies 
     based in the United States.
       (b) Submission.--To the extent practical, the Under 
     Secretary shall submit the Annual Direct Investment Agenda 
     concurrently with the Annual Direct Investment Report.
       (c) Consultation With Congress on Annual Direct Investment 
     Agenda.--The Under Secretary shall keep the appropriate 
     congressional committees currently informed with respect to 
     the Annual Direct Investment Agenda and implementation of the 
     Agenda. After the submission of the Agenda, the Under 
     Secretary shall also consult periodically with, and take into 
     account the views of, the appropriate congressional 
     committees regarding implementation of the Agenda.

     SEC. 7. UNITED STATES DIRECT INVESTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish and the 
     Under Secretary shall assume lead responsibility for an 
     Interagency United States Direct Investment Promotion 
     Committee. The functions of the Committee shall be to--
       (1) coordinate all United States Government activities 
     related to the promotion of direct investment in the United 
     States;
       (2) advocate and implement strategic policies, programs, 
     and practices that will increase direct investment in the 
     United States;
       (3) train United States Government officials to pursue 
     strategic policies, programs, and practices that will 
     increase direct investment in the United States;
       (4) consult with business, labor, State, regional, and 
     local government officials on strategic policies, programs, 
     and practices that will increase direct investment in the 
     United States;
       (5) develop and publish materials that can be used by 
     Federal, State, regional, and local government officials to 
     increase direct investment in the United States;
       (6) create and maintain a database of direct investment 
     opportunities in the United States;
       (7) create and maintain an interactive website that can be 
     used to access direct investment opportunities in different 
     sectors and geographical areas of the United States, with 
     particular emphasis on critical high-technology industries;
       (8) coordinate direct investment marketing activities with 
     State Economic Development Agencies; and
       (9) host regular meetings and discussions with State, 
     regional, and local economic development officials to 
     consider best policy practices to increase direct investment 
     in the United States.
       (b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the 
     following:
       (1) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (2) The United States Trade Representative.
       (3) Members of the United States International Trade 
     Commission.
       (4) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       (5) Members of the National Economic Council.
       (6) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (7) Such other officials as the President determines to be 
     necessary.

     SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.

       Section 1400E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to designation of renewal communities) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Additional Designations Permitted.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the areas designated 
     under subsection (a), the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     United States Direct Investment, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, may designate in the aggregate an 
     additional 10 nominated areas as renewal communities under 
     this section, subject to the availability of eligible 
     nominated areas.
       ``(2) Period designations may be made and take effect.--A 
     designation may be made under this subsection after the date 
     of the enactment of this subsection and before the date which 
     is 5 years after such date of enactment. Subject to 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (b)(1), a designation 
     made under this subsection shall remain in effect during the 
     period beginning with such designation and ending on the date 
     which is 8 years after such designation.
       ``(3) Application of rules.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in paragraph (1), the rules of this section shall apply to 
     designations under this subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 741. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act to establish a grant program to ensure waterfront access 
for commercial fishermen, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, all along our Nation's coasts there are 
harbors that were once full of the hustle and bustle associated with 
the fishing industry. Unfortunately, there has been an erosion of the 
vital infrastructure, known as our working waterfronts, that is so 
critical to our commercial fishing industries. To better preserve these 
waterfront areas, I have drafted legislation that will help to protect 
commercial access to our waterfronts and to support the fishing 
industry's role in our maritime heritage.
  When constituents have called asking me to help them in their efforts 
to stop the loss of their fishing businesses and the communities built 
around this industry, I realized more needed to be done to preserve and 
increase waterfront access for the commercial fishing industry. 
Currently, there is no Federal program to promote and protect the 
working waterfronts other than identifying some grant programs that 
might apply. There is an immediate need to protect our working 
waterfronts since we are losing more of them every week, and quite 
simply, once lost, these vital economic and community hubs of 
commercial fishing activity cannot be replaced.
  I rise today to re-introduce a bill I originally proposed in the 
109th Congress--the Working Waterfront Preservation Act. This 
legislation would create a program to support our Nation's commercial 
fishing families and the coastal communities that are at risk of losing 
their fishing businesses.
  I can illustrate the need for such a program by describing the loss 
of commercial waterfront access occurring in

[[Page 5190]]

Maine. Only 25 of Maine's 3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to 
commercial access. We are continually seeing portions of Maine's 
working waterfront being sold off to the highest bidder--with large 
vacation homes and condominiums rising in places that our fishing 
industry used to call home.
  The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex. 
In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in 
landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure, 
like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values 
and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land 
unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private 
spaces and second homes that are no longer the center of economic 
activity.
  Maine's lack of commercial waterfront prompted the formation of a 
``Working Waterfront Coalition.'' This coalition is comprised of an 
impressive number of industry associations, non- profit groups, and 
state agencies, who came together to preserve Maine's working 
waterfront. The coalition identified eighteen projects that would 
increase Maine's available working waterfront. These eighteen sites 
would create or preserve more than 875 jobs.
  I'm pleased to note that the Working Waterfront Coalition has been 
successful in contributing to the creation of two programs in Maine. 
The first is a State tax incentive for property owners to keep their 
land in its current working waterfront condition. The second is a pilot 
program for grant funding to secure and preserve working waterfront 
areas. I am proud that the State of Maine has taken positive action to 
save its waterfront infrastructure and is a model for other States in 
the country facing this problem.
  However, we must press on with this priority. The loss of commercial 
waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal 
States. Pick up a newspaper in one of our coastal States, and you will 
read about this struggle. Fishermen in Galilee, RI are being pushed 
away from the waterfronts as their profitability shrinks and land 
values soar. The Los Angeles Times ran a story on the disappearance of 
working waterfronts in Florida. That State has also since enacted a law 
to protect their working waterfronts. Washington State struggles to 
balance working waterfronts with increased development pressure. 
Another region of the country that this bill would benefit is the Gulf 
Coast. This legislation would assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina 
in rebuilding their shore-side infrastructure destroyed in the storm.
  And modest federal investment could do so much to save these areas. 
Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of 
life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic 
development along the coast. This bill targets this problem, as no 
Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida, 
Washington, and Louisiana.
  The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing 
Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit 
organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of 
property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront 
facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants 
that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants 
would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and state 
fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the 
needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to 
convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of 
receiving federal assistance.
  This legislation also has a tax component included. When properties 
or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the 
gain they receive from this sale. Taxing only half of the gain on 
conservation sales is a proposal that has been advanced by the 
President in all of his budget proposals. This is a vital aspect of my 
bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront 
property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial 
uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in 
this grant program. This is especially important given that the 
application process for federal grants does not keep pace with the 
coastal real estate market.
  This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries, 
which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new 
grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and 
promote economic development along our coast. I am committed to 
creating a Federal mechanism to preserve working waterfronts and will 
pursue this legislation during the 110th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 744. A bill to provide greater public safety by making more 
spectrum available to public safety, to establish the Public Safety 
Interoperable Communications Working Group to provide standards for 
public safety spectrum needs, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
Spectrum Availability for Emergency-Response and Law-Enforcement to 
Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as the SAVE LIVES 
Act. The bill would provide public safety with the ability to use an 
additional 30 MHz of radio spectrum for a new nationwide public safety 
state-of-the-art broadband network. This would allow police, fire, 
sheriffs, and other medical and emergency professionals the ability to 
communicate using a modern and reliable broadband network, thereby 
allowing for interoperable communications between local, State and 
Federal first responders during emergencies.
  The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that: ``Command and control 
decisions were affected by the lack of knowledge of what was happening 
30, 60, 90, and 100 floors above'' due to the inability of police and 
firefighters to communicate using their hand held radios. The Final 
Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio 
spectrum to public safety entities'' to resolve the problem. This bill 
would finally implement fully the recommendation.
  Let me be clear: the Federal Government has made many strides in 
developing a comprehensive, interoperable emergency communications 
plan, setting equipment standards, funding the purchase of 
interoperable communications equipment, and belatedly making additional 
radio spectrum available. But none of this is enough. We will not solve 
our Nation's interoperability crisis until all emergency personnel 
involved in responding to an incident are able to communicate 
seamlessly, and that is what this legislation is intended to 
accomplish.
  I have been working on this issue for many years. Ten years ago, 
while serving as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I 
introduced the Law Enforcement and Public Safety Telecommunications 
Empowerment Act, which would have provided public safety with 24 MHz in 
the 700 MHz band and authorized 10 percent of proceeds from an auction 
of spectrum to commercial companies to be used to fund State and local 
law enforcement communications. Although my bill did not pass, Congress 
did require this spectrum to be allocated to public safety in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  Unfortunately, this spectrum was encumbered by television 
broadcasters who refused to move despite broadcasters being given other 
spectrum in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The television 
broadcasters persuaded some members of Congress to slip into the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 a provision that allowed for broadcasters 
to retain their new spectrum and use the spectrum dedicated to public 
safety for an indefinite time.
  Rightly, public safety fought the broadcasters' ``spectrum 
squatting'' and asked Congress to set a firm date for broadcasters to 
provide public safety spectrum. I was happy to support them in the 
fight.
  During the 108th Congress, I introduced a bill that would have 
provided public safety with this spectrum by January 1, 2008. The bill 
was not considered by the Senate. I also introduced

[[Page 5191]]

an amendment to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 to set a firm date for the delivery of this spectrum, but it was 
strongly opposed thanks to the broadcasters.
  In October 2005, the Commerce Committee debated a firm date as part 
of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2006. I offered an amendment to 
make the spectrum available by January 2007, but it was shot down by a 
vote of 17-5. I then took an amendment to the floor which was defeated 
by a vote of 30-69. Congress did finally set the date of February 17, 
2009--date that is too late in my opinion.
  I have not only been concerned about public safety not receiving 
spectrum in a timely manner, but also not receiving enough spectrum. In 
2004, I offered an amendment that was included in the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which required the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) to study the short-term and long-term spectrum needs of public 
safety. In December 2005, the FCC delivered their report. While the 
report did not contain a specific amount of spectrum necessary to aid 
public safety interoperability, it did state, `` . . . . emergency 
response providers would benefit from the development of an integrated, 
interoperable nationwide network capable of delivering broadband 
services throughout the country.'' DHS has never provided its report to 
Congress.
  The FCC's recommendation became all too apparent during the horrors 
of Hurricane Katrina. First responders in Louisiana were unable to 
communicate with each other during their response and recovery efforts 
because New Orleans and the three nearby parishes all used different 
radio equipment and frequencies. To make matters worse, Federal 
officials responding to the area used an entirely different 
communications system than the local first responders, which hindered 
relief efforts. New Orleans officials had purchased equipment that 
would allow some patching between local and Federal radio systems, but 
that equipment was rendered useless by flooding. Nonetheless, short 
term solutions to link incompatible systems are not the right approach 
to this critical problem. A better approach is for this Nation and its 
representatives to get serious about public safety communications by 
developing an interoperable communications network for all local, 
state, regional and Federal first responders that can carry voice and 
data communications.
  I believe the SAVE LIVES bill provides that comprehensive and serious 
approach. The bill would establish a national policy for public safety 
spectrum, directing that the 24 MHz allocated by Congress to public 
safety in 1997 be used for state, local and regional interoperability 
and that the 30 MHz in the 700 MHz band be available as needed for a 
national, interoperable public safety broadband network by local, 
State, regional and Federal first responders. These two networks would 
be interoperable, thereby allowing local, State, regional and Federal 
first responders to communicate. Congress has deemed spectrum in the 
700 MHz band ``ideal'' for public safety communications because it can 
travel great distances and penetrate thick walls.
  The day before our Nation experienced the worst act of terrorism on 
our soil, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee completed an 
850-page study of public safety spectrum requirements and recommended 
that 97.5 MHz of additional spectrum be made available for public 
safety. In 1997, Congress set aside 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz 
band for public safety use, but due to television broadcasters refusal 
to relocate from that spectrum, public safety will not have full use of 
the spectrum until February 2009. However, public safety states that 
the 24 MHz is not enough. Just last month, Fire Chief Charles Werner of 
Virginia testified before the Senate Commerce Committee that an 
additional 70 MHz may be needed by 2011.
  The bill also would establish a ``Public Safety Interoperable Working 
Group'' (the Working Group) to establish user driven specifications for 
public safety's use of the 30 MHz and then require the FCC to auction 
the 30 MHz under a ``conditional license'' that requires any winning 
bidder to meet public safety's specifications to operate a national, 
interoperable public safety broadband network. If there is no winning 
bidder, then the license to the 30 MHz will revert to public safety, 
which could then use the spectrum for a national, interoperable public 
safety broadband network and work with the FCC to auction excess non-
emergency capacity.
  To ensure public safety is using the spectrum effectively and 
efficiently, the bill would require the FCC to review public safety's 
use of the 24 MHz to determine whether it could handle a national 
interoperable broadband network in addition to local, state and 
regional networks as technology improves. The bill would also require 
the FCC, DHS and public safety to review the possibility of moving most 
public safety communications to the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands thereby 
enhancing interoperability.
  As required by Congress, the FCC is slated to auction spectrum in the 
700 MHz band by January 28, 2008. Except for the 24 MHz allocated to 
public safety, the remaining spectrum will be auctioned to commercial 
providers unless Congress dictates otherwise. Therefore any use of the 
30 MHz by public safety must be considered quickly by Congress as the 
FCC would need to begin developing the rules for a conditional license 
by early fall to ensure that the auction date is not delayed.
  Late last year, the FCC stated, ``The availability of a nationwide, 
interoperable, broadband communication network for public safety 
substantially could enhance the ability of public safety entities to 
respond to emergency situations . . . yet only 2.6 MHz is designated 
for nationwide interoperable communications in the 700 MHz public 
safety band.'' This is unacceptable and that is why I believe the SAVE 
LIVES Act would solve the interoperability crisis that faces our 
country.
  We cannot survive another disaster such as 9/11 or Katrina without 
reforming our Nation's interoperable communications. I fought for many 
years to clear the 700 MHz spectrum for first responders and now that 
there is a firm date for the availability of this spectrum, we should 
ensure that a sufficient amount of spectrum is being provided to first 
responders. Again, this spectrum is slated to be auctioned in January 
2008 to commercial entities, so if Congress does not act now to ensure 
that public safety can have some reasonable access to this valuable 
spectrum, it will be auctioned off without any consideration to our 
Nation's interoperability crisis and this opportunity will be lost 
forever.
  I know some critics would rather all of this spectrum be auctioned 
solely for commercial applications, such as wireless Internet surfing, 
instant messaging and phone services. I can assure you, I do not lay 
awake at night wondering why my children can't surf the Internet on 
their cell phone from any location at any time, but I do worry about 
whether we will be adequately prepared to respond to the next disaster.
  I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved during 9/11 
had this spectrum been available and I can only imagine how many 
victims of Hurricane Katrina could have been rescued sooner if only 
police, fire fighters and other emergency personnel had been able to 
communicate with each other. But instead of imagining, we have an 
obligation to act. We can have a national, interoperable communications 
system available to first responders by 2009 if we act now to make this 
spectrum available to public safety.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAVE LIVES Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 745. A bill to provide for increased export assistance staff in 
areas in which the President declared a major disaster as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 and Hurricane Rita of 2005; to the Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as I come to the floor today to speak, 
there are countless small businesses in the

[[Page 5192]]

Gulf Coast, right this moment, that are open for business. The fact 
that they are open at all is a testament to the hard work and resolve 
of their owners, along with the focus and commitment of community 
leaders, state and local officials, as well as Congress and the White 
House. This is because, as you know, the Gulf Coast was devastated in 
2005 by two of the most powerful storms to ever hit the United States 
in recorded history--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  I strongly believe that we cannot rebuild the Gulf Coast without our 
small businesses. Small businesses not only create jobs and pay taxes--
they provide the innovation and energy that drives our economy. In 
fact, before Katrina and Rita hit, there were more than 95,000 small 
businesses in Louisiana, employing about 850,000 people--more than half 
of my State's workforce. About 39,000 of these businesses have yet to 
resume normal operations so I intend to do everything I can in the 
coming months to get them back up and running.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation to help provide the 
necessary staff to help our small businesses in the Gulf recover from 
the devastating storms of 2005. In particular, this legislation is 
focused on promoting exports by small businesses Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama. Small businesses are important players in 
international trade, which is reflected in the fact that small 
businesses represent that 96 percent of all exporters of goods and 
services In Louisiana, we have about 2,000 declared exporters. However, 
there are many more businesses in my state who conduct Internet sales 
overseas, as well as those who focus operations on domestic sales but 
have some international buyers as well. These businesses are exporters 
but in many cases they do not even realize it!
  Given the importance of these exporters to my State and to the rest 
of the country, I would like to improve their competitive edge in the 
international market and give them every resource they need to succeed. 
As our businesses continue to recover, one of the main issues being 
faced by our small businesses is accessing capital. They need help 
accessing export financing to cover export-related costs such as 
purchasing equipment, purchasing inventory, or financing production 
costs.
  To assist businesses with obtaining export financing, fifteen SBA 
Finance Specialists operate out of 100 U.S. Export Assistance Centers 
administered by the Department of Commerce around the country. However, 
despite the increased need for export financing in the Gulf Coast, 
there is currently no International Finance Specialist located in any 
of the hardest hit States of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. 
Instead there is one specialist in Texas with responsibility for Texas, 
Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana and one specialist in Georgia 
responsible for Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. 
Due to the extensive territories they cover and limited travel budgets 
of the staff, these specialists must divide their time and cannot focus 
on the needs of Gulf Coast small businesses.
  With this in mind, this legislation would provide an SBA 
International Finance Specialist to the New Orleans U.S. Export 
Assistance Center with responsibility for Louisiana, Alabama, and 
Mississippi. I believe this is a commonsense approach, since this 
position in New Orleans has remained vacant since 2003 due to 
retirement and budget issues. So this is not a new position or a new 
hire, it is simply filling a position that has sat open for far too 
long.
  The Gulf Coast Export Recovery Act of 2007 would also address 
Commerce staffing issues for our New Orleans U.S. Export Assistance 
Center. In this office, there is currently four full-time export 
assistance staff, along with one Foreign Service Officer. This office 
has had two staffers leave the office since Katrina and I am concerned 
that when this Foreign Service Officer leaves this fall, that there 
will be no replacement. This understaffed office is struggling to keep 
up with the increasing demands from businesses for technical assistance 
on finding overseas markets for local products, particularly businesses 
near Baton Rouge and the River parishes. Staff in New Orleans cover 
south Louisiana as well as the coastal counties in Mississippi. With 
such a wide area to cover, and so few staff, they are doing a great job 
in providing services but obviously need additional help to fully 
service our local businesses. The Small Business International Trade 
Enhancements Act of 2007 would provide one additional full-time staffer 
to this office to assist our businesses in the parishes of East Baton 
Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Iberville, Pointe Coupee, St. Martin, St. 
Landry and Iberia. Many of our businesses from the New Orleans area are 
relocating to these parishes so we need adequate staff to keep up with 
increasing export needs in the area.
  In closing, I should note that both of these provisions were included 
in the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that was reported 
out of committee last Fall. Unfortunately, since that bill was not 
enacted, these provisions did not become law and our small business 
exporters have waited an additional 7 months for increased export 
assistance resources. I do not want them to have to wait another 7 
months for this vital assistance. We are only asking for two full-time 
staffers for an office, but these two staffers would make a world of 
difference for the businesses, as well as for the understaffed office 
down there. I believe both the Department of Commerce and the Small 
Business Administration are supportive of these staffing increases so I 
look forward to working with them in the coming months to address these 
staffing needs in New Orleans. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation since it will help our exporters in the Gulf Coast fully 
recover and will help the country as a whole by increasing exports from 
the Gulf Coast states.
  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. 745

       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 ``Gulf Coast Export Recovery 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR NEW ORLEANS UNITED STATES EXPORT 
                   ASSISTANCE CENTER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall hire 1 
     additional full-time international trade specialist, to be 
     located in the New Orleans, Louisiana, United States Export 
     Assistance Center.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The international trade specialist 
     hired under subsection (a) shall provide service to the 
     parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Pointe 
     Coupee, Iberville, St. Martin, St. Landry, and Iberia, 
     Louisiana, and any other parish selected by the Secretary of 
     Commerce.

     SEC. 3. GULF COAST EXPORT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Increase in Small Business International Trade Staff.--
     The Administrator shall hire an additional full-time 
     international finance specialist to the Office of 
     International Trade of the Administration.
       (b) Location and Service Area.--The international finance 
     specialist hired under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) be located in the New Orleans, Louisiana United States 
     Export Assistance Center;
       (2) help to carry out the export promotion efforts 
     described in section 22 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     649); and
       (3) provide such services in the States of Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, and Alabama.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Administration such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts made available under 
     this subsection shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the terms ``Administration'' and 
     ``Administrator'' mean the Small Business Administration and 
     the Administrator thereof, respectively.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Dodd, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Crapo):
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of 
official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States 
Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native 
Peoples on behalf of

[[Page 5193]]

the United States; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

                              S.J. Res. 4

       Whereas the ancestors of today's Native Peoples inhabited 
     the land of the present-day United States since time 
     immemorial and for thousands of years before the arrival of 
     peoples of European descent;
       Whereas the Native Peoples have for millennia honored, 
     protected, and stewarded this land we cherish;
       Whereas the Native Peoples are spiritual peoples with a 
     deep and abiding belief in the Creator, and for millennia 
     their peoples have maintained a powerful spiritual connection 
     to this land, as is evidenced by their customs and legends;
       Whereas the arrival of Europeans in North America opened a 
     new chapter in the histories of the Native Peoples;
       Whereas, while establishment of permanent European 
     settlements in North America did stir conflict with nearby 
     Indian tribes, peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions 
     also took place;
       Whereas the foundational English settlements in Jamestown, 
     Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts, owed their survival in 
     large measure to the compassion and aid of the Native Peoples 
     in their vicinities;
       Whereas in the infancy of the United States, the founders 
     of the Republic expressed their desire for a just 
     relationship with the Indian tribes, as evidenced by the 
     Northwest Ordinance enacted by Congress in 1787, which begins 
     with the phrase, ``The utmost good faith shall always be 
     observed toward the Indians'';
       Whereas Indian tribes provided great assistance to the 
     fledgling Republic as it strengthened and grew, including 
     invaluable help to Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on 
     their epic journey from St. Louis, Missouri, to the Pacific 
     Coast;
       Whereas Native Peoples and non-Native settlers engaged in 
     numerous armed conflicts;
       Whereas the United States Government violated many of the 
     treaties ratified by Congress and other diplomatic agreements 
     with Indian tribes;
       Whereas this Nation should address the broken treaties and 
     many of the more ill-conceived Federal policies that 
     followed, such as extermination, termination, forced removal 
     and relocation, the outlawing of traditional religions, and 
     the destruction of sacred places;
       Whereas the United States forced Indian tribes and their 
     citizens to move away from their traditional homelands and 
     onto federally established and controlled reservations, in 
     accordance with such Acts as the Indian Removal Act of 1830;
       Whereas many Native Peoples suffered and perished--
       (1) during the execution of the official United States 
     Government policy of forced removal, including the infamous 
     Trail of Tears and Long Walk;
       (2) during bloody armed confrontations and massacres, such 
     as the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee 
     Massacre in 1890; and
       (3) on numerous Indian reservations;
       Whereas the United States Government condemned the 
     traditions, beliefs, and customs of the Native Peoples and 
     endeavored to assimilate them by such policies as the 
     redistribution of land under the General Allotment Act of 
     1887 and the forcible removal of Native children from their 
     families to faraway boarding schools where their Native 
     practices and languages were degraded and forbidden;
       Whereas officials of the United States Government and 
     private United States citizens harmed Native Peoples by the 
     unlawful acquisition of recognized tribal land and the theft 
     of tribal resources and assets from recognized tribal land;
       Whereas the policies of the United States Government toward 
     Indian tribes and the breaking of covenants with Indian 
     tribes have contributed to the severe social ills and 
     economic troubles in many Native communities today;
       Whereas, despite the wrongs committed against Native 
     Peoples by the United States, the Native Peoples have 
     remained committed to the protection of this great land, as 
     evidenced by the fact that, on a per capita basis, more 
     Native people have served in the United States Armed Forces 
     and placed themselves in harm's way in defense of the United 
     States in every major military conflict than any other ethnic 
     group;
       Whereas Indian tribes have actively influenced the public 
     life of the United States by continued cooperation with 
     Congress and the Department of the Interior, through the 
     involvement of Native individuals in official United States 
     Government positions, and by leadership of their own 
     sovereign Indian tribes;
       Whereas Indian tribes are resilient and determined to 
     preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their 
     unique cultural identities;
       Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian was 
     established within the Smithsonian Institution as a living 
     memorial to the Native Peoples and their traditions; and
       Whereas Native Peoples are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain unalienable rights, and that among those are life, 
     liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.

       The United States, acting through Congress--
       (1) recognizes the special legal and political relationship 
     the Indian tribes have with the United States and the solemn 
     covenant with the land we share;
       (2) commends and honors the Native Peoples for the 
     thousands of years that they have stewarded and protected 
     this land;
       (3) recognizes that there have been years of official 
     depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of 
     covenants by the United States Government regarding Indian 
     tribes;
       (4) apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States 
     to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, 
     maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by 
     citizens of the United States;
       (5) expresses its regret for the ramifications of former 
     wrongs and its commitment to build on the positive 
     relationships of the past and present to move toward a 
     brighter future where all the people of this land live 
     reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward 
     and protect this land together;
       (6) urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the 
     United States against Indian tribes in the history of the 
     United States in order to bring healing to this land by 
     providing a proper foundation for reconciliation between the 
     United States and Indian tribes; and
       (7) commends the State governments that have begun 
     reconciliation efforts with recognized Indian tribes located 
     in their boundaries and encourages all State governments 
     similarly to work toward reconciling relationships with 
     Indian tribes within their boundaries.

     SEC. 2. DISCLAIMER.

       Nothing in this Joint Resolution--
       (1) authorizes or supports any claim against the United 
     States; or
       (2) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United 
     States.

                          ____________________