[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6239-6248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      BY Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 849. A bill to promote accessibility, accountability, and openness 
in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States 
Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cornyn in 
reintroducing the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National 
Government Act'', the ``OPEN Government Act''. This bill contains 
commonsense reforms to update and strengthen the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) for all Americans.
  Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported an 
essentially identical bill. Sadly, the full Senate did not consider 
this legislation before it adjourned last year. But, I hope that the 
Senate will do its part to reinvigorate FOIA this year, by promptly 
passing this bill.
  During my three decades in the Senate, I have devoted a considerable 
portion of my work to improving government openness, to make our 
government work better for the American people. At times, this has been 
a lonely effort. But, for the past 4 years, I have been delighted to 
have Senator Cornyn as a partner on this important issue. I thank him 
for his leadership on preserving and strengthening FOIA.
  Now in its fourth decade, the Freedom of Information Act remains an 
indispensable tool in shedding light on bad policies and government 
abuses. But, today, FOIA also faces challenges like never before. 
During the past 6 years, the Bush administration has allowed lax FOIA 
enforcement and a near obsession with secrecy to undercut the public's 
right to know. As we celebrate Sunshine Week this week, there is urgent 
need to update and strengthen our FOIA law.
  Chief among the problems with FOIA is the major delays encountered by 
FOIA requestors. According to a report by the National Security 
Archive, an independent nongovernmental research institute, the oldest 
outstanding FOIA requests date back to 1989--before the collapse of the 
Soviet Union. And, while the number of FOIA requests submitted each 
year continues to rise, our Federal agencies remain unable--or 
unwilling--to keep up with the demand. Just recently, the Government 
Accountability Office found that Federal agencies had 43 percent more 
FOIA requests pending and outstanding in 2006, than they had in 2002.
  Although the Bush administration has taken modest steps to address 
the growing problem with FOIA delays, that effort has not done nearly 
enough to correct lax FOIA enforcement by Federal agencies. More than a 
year after the President's directive to Government agencies to improve 
their FOIA services, Americans who seek information under FOIA remain 
less likely to obtain it. For example, a recent study by the Coalition 
of Journalists for Open Government found that the percentage of FOIA 
requestors who obtained at least some of the information that they 
requested from the Government fell by 31 percent last year. These and 
other shortcomings with the President's FOIA policy demonstrate that 
the Congress must play an important role in preserving and 
strengthening FOIA.
  The legislation that Senator Cornyn and I introduce today takes 
several important steps to help Americans obtain timely responses to 
their FOIA requests and to provide government officials with the tools 
that they need to ensure that our government remains open and 
accessible. First, our bill restores meaningful deadlines for agency 
action by ensuring that the 20-day statutory clock runs immediately 
upon the receipt of the request and the bill impose real consequences 
on Federal agencies for missing statutory deadlines. Our bill also 
clarifies that FOIA applies to agency records that are held by outside 
private contractors, no matter where these records are located.
  In addition, our bill establishes a FOIA hotline service for all 
Federal agencies, either by telephone or on the Internet, to enable 
requestors to track the status of their FOIA requests. Finally, our 
bill enhances the agency reporting requirements under FOIA and improves 
personnel policies for FOIA officials to enhance agency FOIA 
performance.
  This legislation was drafted after a long and thoughtful process of 
consultation with individuals and organizations that rely on FOIA to 
obtain information and share it with the public, including the news 
media, librarians, and public interest organizations representing all 
facets of the political spectrum.
  This legislation also reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA--that 
government information belongs to all Americans. Again, I thank Senator 
Cornyn for the time and effort that he has devoted to reinvigorating 
FOIA, and I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this important 
open government legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 852. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants 
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 853. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast 
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 854. A bill to modify the project for navigation, Union River, 
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 855. A bill to deauthorize a certain portion of the project for 
navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 856. A bill to terminate authorization for the project for 
navigation, Rockport Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 857. A bill to redesignate the project for navigation, Saco River, 
Maine, as an anchorage area; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a series of 
bills that are important to economic development along our long 
coastline. Most of these bills were either included in the Water 
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006 or has passed the Senate as a 
stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, much to my great disappointment, the 
larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see 
action before the Senate adjourned the 109th Congress. My hope is that 
all of these noncontroversial bills will be included in the WRDA 
legislation in the 110th Congress.
  Importantly, all of my bills are supported by the various townspeople 
and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor 
deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic 
development. The bills also have the support of the New England 
District of the Corps of Engineers.
  The first bill pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, ME. 
Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) would be of great 
help to the town in

[[Page 6240]]

appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the 
years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of 
Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for 
moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that 
the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the 
federal navigational channel.
  My second bill concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The 
language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and 
commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast 
Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the 
Nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of 
the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand 
for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more 
timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings 
and shoreline facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, 
along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to 
obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.
  My third bill addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill 
supports the city of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River 
navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for 
in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an 
anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of 
moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will 
further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area.
  My fourth bill, that passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill last 
year, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland 
Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains 
its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities 
in the Mid-coast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern 
seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of 
financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been 
able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways.
  The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, 
earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the 
World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and 
as such, are vitally important to both the city and the State. The 
image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed 
at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, 
graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers 
symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of 
adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American 
experience.
  Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the 
new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed 
Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is 
tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine 
Resources piers.
  The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the 
Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural 
beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly 
by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these 
businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel 
will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for 
the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the 
State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a 
multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million 
dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million 
dollars a year in the state.
  I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in 
drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of 
Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city 
officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the 
Windjammer vessels--Mainers and business people with the vision and 
commitment needed to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent 
home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.
  I am reintroducing my fifth bill for the Town of Rockport--this 
request came in after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed 
out the WRDA bill in the last Congress. It would deauthorize a part of 
the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on 
the active Mid-Coast of Maine, has requested that Congress decommission 
a 35 foot by 275 foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine 
Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install 
permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would 
replace the current temporary float system.
  My sixth bill for reintroduction today is a bill for the City of 
Saco, Maine that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of 
boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an 
anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The 
town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings 
located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to 
eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a 
modification or de-authorization of the Federal Navigational Project to 
resolve the issue.
  The US Army Corps of Engineers suggested language that re-designates 
the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs 
of the community. The language will allow for the legal moorage of 
boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the city of Saco as 
is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. The two mayors of the 
cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the 
Corps' language.
  It is my hope that all of these non-controversial provisions will be 
included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and I am 
writing Senator Boxer, the new Chairwoman of the EPW Committee 
requesting inclusion of my bills in the upcoming WRDA bill. I am 
pleased to hear that she is also anxious for the WRDA bill to move 
forward just as quickly as possible. It has been six long years since 
our last WRDA bill was signed into law--much too long even for the 
patient people in Maine who want to urgently move forward on economic 
development for their coastal communities.
  Also, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bill with Senator Collins 
that addresses the project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp 
Ellis, ME. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out 
the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore 
damage attributable to the Saco River navigational project, waiving the 
funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in 
that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will 
cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred 
project by non-Federal interests.
  Studies have shown that the Army Corps jetty, built over 100 years 
ago, has contributed to beach erosion and the loss of more than thirty 
houses to the sea. The houses in danger currently were once six rows 
back from the water. When the mitigation project is completed, it is 
hoped that it will protect the residents, households, and businesses 
along the shoreline adjacent to the Army Corps jetty in Saco.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        menendez, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 858. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue, 
patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy 
policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the 
biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars, 
trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every 
day.
  That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help 
citizens who

[[Page 6241]]

want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by commuting to work by 
bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act 
of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin, Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and 
Sanders.
  I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete 
about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to 
climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking 
for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency. 
The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give 
up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and 
get on their bicycles instead.
  According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people 
throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are 
freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and 
overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise; 
avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe.
  Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow 
employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive 
created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that 
enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those 
who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking 
benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for 
mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create 
a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their 
jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this 
financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists.
  The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their 
employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who 
ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax 
code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a 
monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding 
their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. 
The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level 
of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and 
their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop 
driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus 
and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their 
bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from 
their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the 
Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from 
$40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the 
costs of riding their bikes.
  This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who 
ride their bikes to and from their jobs.
  Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my 
fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co-
sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United 
States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want 
to offer to those who take mass transit or drive.
  In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national 
bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle 
Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the 
Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and 
hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every 
day.
  When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of 
dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job 
markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make 
greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their 
jobs.
  I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this 
legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road 
to oil independence by biking to work.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 858

       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 ``Bicycle Commuters Benefits 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE 
                   COMMUTERS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general rule for 
     qualified transportation fringe) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(D) Bicycle commuting allowance.''.
       (b) Bicycle Commuting Allowance Defined.--Paragraph (5) of 
     section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(F) Bicycle commuting allowance.--The term `bicycle 
     commuting allowance' means an amount provided to an employee 
     for transportation on a bicycle if such transportation is in 
     connection with travel between the employee's residence and 
     place of employment.''.
       (c) Limitation on Exclusion.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     limitation on exclusion) is amended by striking 
     ``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (D)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 859. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to award funds to 
study the feasibility of constructing dedicated ethanol pipelines to 
increase the energy, economic, and environmental security of the United 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol 
Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2007. This bill directs the Department 
of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting 
ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of 
Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill.
  There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete 
dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also 
understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this 
dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and 
promote alternatives to petroleum-based fuels in transportation.
  The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline 
today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the 
form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all, 
as a domestically-produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national 
energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality 
benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because 
ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or 
groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and 
regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and 
labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs.
  My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and 
potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use 
in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A 
key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under 
which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to 
contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions 
promote the production of ethanol from a broad variety of plentiful and 
low-cost biomass including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry 
wastes woody municipal wastes and dedicated energy crops.
  The viability of ethanol is reflected in the rapid expansion of its 
production and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent 
annually for the past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term 
potential to become a very significant energy source for transportation 
is gaining attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol 
can contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in 
the future. Several of my Senate colleagues

[[Page 6242]]

have joined me to introduce S. 23, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, 
which calls for increased access to ethanol at the pump and greatly 
expanded production of flexible-fuel vehicles. The Act also provides a 
directive for domestic production of renewable fuels to reach 60 
billion gallons a year by 2030. I am especially proud of the leadership 
role that my State of Iowa and communities across rural America are 
going to play in this expansion.
  Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full 
implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt 
attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be 
shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should 
be considered due to the potential economic and environmental 
advantages this alternative might offer as compared to shipment by 
highway, rail tanker, or barge. As production volumes increase, 
especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump 
ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the 
country. Pipeline shipping could provide for reduced vehicle emissions 
and superior energy efficiency compared to rail or tanker shipment.
  For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of 
an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is 
likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport 
of ethanol as early as 2015. The current state of knowledge regarding 
transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. Although it is being done 
in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol, 
challenges remain. The water solubility of ethanol introduces technical 
and operational issues that affect the shipment of ethanol in multi-
product pipelines. Thus, the largest associated research costs will be 
in the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction 
of the first ethanol pipelines. This work may well take as long as a 
decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to 
develop a solid understanding of this ethanol transport option.
  This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of 
Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for 
analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and 
siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A 
systematic analysis of these issues will provide the substantive 
information necessary to assess the costs and benefits of this 
transport alternative. The Act would allow DOE the option of funding 
private sector studies or conducting the studies on its own. The 
results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits 
and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide 
critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates 
ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to 
understand what policies or programs might be appropriate to promote 
the most cost-effective and environmentally sound ethanol transport 
into the future.
  We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce 
our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of 
renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to take into account the full 
range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. The 
rapid growth of ethanol production and use necessitates the very near-
term study of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I urge my Senate 
colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 859

       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 ``Ethanol Infrastructure 
     Expansion Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) it is in the national interest to make greater use of 
     ethanol in transportation fuels;
       (2) ethanol is a clean, renewable fuel that provides public 
     health benefits in the form of reduced emissions, including 
     reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change;
       (3) ethanol use provides economic gains to agricultural 
     producers, biofuels producers, and rural areas;
       (4) ethanol use benefits the national security of the 
     United States by displacing the use of petroleum, much of 
     which is imported from foreign countries that are hostile to 
     the United States;
       (5) ethanol can reduce prices at the pump for motoring 
     consumers by extending fuel supplies and due to the 
     competitive cost of ethanol relative to conventional 
     gasoline;
       (6) ethanol faces shipping challenges in pipelines that 
     transport other liquid transportation fuels;
       (7) currently ethanol is shipped by rail tanker cars, 
     barges, and trucks, all of which could, as ethanol production 
     expands, encounter capacity limits due to competing use 
     demands for the rail tanker cars, barges, and trucks;
       (8) as the United States ethanol market expands in the 
     coming years there is likely to be a need for dedicated 
     ethanol pipelines to transport ethanol from the Midwest, 
     where ethanol generally is produced, to the Eastern and 
     Western United States;
       (9) as of the date of enactment of this Act, dedicated 
     ethanol pipelines do not exist in the United States and will 
     be challenging to construct, at least initially;
       (10) Brazil has already shown that ethanol can be shipped 
     effectively via pipeline; and
       (11) having an ethanol pipeline study completed in the very 
     near term is important because the construction of 1 or more 
     dedicated ethanol pipelines would take at least several years 
     to complete.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Energy.

     SEC. 4. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Transportation, 
     shall spend up to $1,000,000 to fund feasibility studies for 
     the construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines.
       (b) Conduct of Studies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) through a competitive solicitation process, select 1 or 
     more firms having capabilities in the planning, development, 
     and construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines to carry out 
     the feasibility studies described in subsection (a); or
       (B) carry out the feasibility studies in conjunction with 
     such firms.
       (2) Timing.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary elects to select 1 or 
     more firms under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall award 
     funding under this section not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Studies.--As a condition of receiving funds under this 
     section, a recipient of funding shall agree to submit to the 
     Secretary a completed feasibility study not later than 360 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Study Factors.--Feasibility studies funded under this 
     Act shall include consideration of--
       (1) existing or potential barriers to dedicated ethanol 
     pipelines, including technical, siting, financing, and 
     regulatory barriers;
       (2) potential evolutionary pathways for the development of 
     an ethanol pipeline transport system, such as starting with 
     localized gathering networks as compared to major interstate 
     ethanol pipelines to carry larger volumes from the Midwest to 
     the East or West coast;
       (3) market risk, including throughput risk, and ways of 
     mitigating the risk;
       (4) regulatory, financing, and siting options that would 
     mitigate risk in these areas and help ensure the construction 
     of dedicated ethanol pipelines;
       (5) financial incentives that may be necessary for the 
     construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines, including the 
     return on equity that sponsors of the first dedicated ethanol 
     pipelines will require to invest in the pipelines;
       (6) ethanol production of 20,000,000,000, 30,000,000,000, 
     and 40,000,000,000 gallons per year by 2020; and
       (7) such other factors that the Secretary considers to be 
     appropriate.
       (d) Confidentiality.--If a recipient of funding under this 
     section requests confidential treatment for critical energy 
     infrastructure information or commercially-sensitive data 
     contained in a feasibility study submitted by the recipient 
     under subsection (b)(2)(B), the Secretary shall offer to 
     enter into a confidentiality agreement with the recipient to 
     maintain the confidentiality of the submitted information.
       (e) Review; Report.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) review the feasibility studies submitted under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B) or carried out under subsection 
     (b)(1)(B); and
       (2) not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report that includes--
       (A) information about the potential benefits of 
     constructing dedicated ethanol pipelines; and

[[Page 6243]]

       (B) recommendations for legislation that could help provide 
     for the construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines.

     SEC. 5. FUNDING.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     carry out this Act $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain 
     available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brown, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Specter, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Bayh, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 860. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
permit States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for low-income 
individuals infected with HIV; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early 
Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA. I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text of this bill, along with the numerous letters of support I have 
received from advocacy organizations, be printed in the Record. I am 
pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me once again to introduce 
ETHA. I thank her for the steadfast support she has shown people living 
with HIV. This terrible illness knows no party affiliation, and I am 
pleased to say that ETHA's 20 cosponsors span both sides of the aisle.
  ETHA provides States the ability to extend Medicaid coverage to low-
income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. 
Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become 
disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid. Nearly 50 percent of 
people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to 
treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 5,700 
persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40 
percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV 
disease. I believe it is our moral responsibility to do everything we 
can to ensure that all people living with HIV--regardless of their 
income or their insurance status--have access to timely, effective 
treatment.
  Unfortunately, safety net programs across the country are running out 
of money, and as a consequence, they are generally unable to cover all 
of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. For 
instance, Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program 
(ADAP) is experiencing significant financial hardship due to years of 
inadequate funding. As a consequence, the program has been forced to 
impose burdensome cost-sharing requirements and limit the scope of 
drugs it covers on its formulary. Fortunately, Oregon's ADAP has not 
had to resort to service waiting lists, a cost control mechanism that 
many States have been forced to adopt. As safety net programs like ADAP 
continue to struggle, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to 
low-income, HIV-positive individuals.
  I believe ETHA represents a promising opportunity to turn the tide 
against this devastating epidemic. In 2005, there were 220 newly 
infected HIV cases reported in my home State of Oregon. If we were able 
to provide even a fraction of those individuals access to early 
treatment, we could prevent the progression of their condition to full-
blown AIDS. Experience has shown that current HIV treatments are very 
successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and 
help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people 
living with the disease.
  Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC) support providing 
early healthcare to individuals diagnosed with HIV because it has both 
the potential to save lives and control costs. Specifically, providing 
individuals coverage through ETHA could reduce the death rate of 
persons living with HIV by more than half. Similarly encouraging is the 
potential cost-savings ETHA could generate in the Medicaid program. Due 
to its preventive aim, ETHA is estimated to begin saving the Medicaid 
program $31.7 million each year after the effects of expanded access to 
care are fully realized.
  I believe ETHA is a key example of the type of reform Congress needs 
to be implementing to the federal entitlements. The short term 
investment required to expand Medicaid coverage will ultimately result 
in significant long-term savings to the program--at no harm to the 
beneficiary. But most importantly, ETHA takes an important step toward 
ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care 
they need to lead healthy, productive lives for as long as possible.
  One of the strongest features of ETHA is the enhanced Federal 
Medicaid match rate it provides to encourage States to expand coverage 
to individuals diagnosed with HIV. This provision closely models the 
successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 
2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to 
women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success 
by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to 
people with HIV.
  HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of Americans from a variety of 
backgrounds. Some get the proper medications they need to keep healthy, 
but far too many do not. The inability to access life-saving treatment 
literally creates a ``life and death'' situation for many of our most 
vulnerable citizens. Fortunately, ETHA can give those individuals 
access to the care they need so they can look forward to a long, 
healthy life.
  I again want to thank the strong group of bipartisan Senators that is 
joining me as original cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of 
the organizations around the country that have expressed support for 
this bill, in particular, Oregon's Cascade AIDS Project. The work they 
do on behalf of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in my home State is 
truly commendable, and I appreciate the support they have shown ETHA 
over the years.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 860

       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 ``Early Treatment for HIV Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. OPTIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE OF LOW-INCOME HIV-INFECTED 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1902 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVIII);
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XIX); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(XX) who are described in subsection (dd) (relating to 
     HIV-infected individuals);''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(dd) HIV-infected individuals described in this 
     subsection are individuals not described in subsection 
     (a)(10)(A)(i)--
       ``(1) who have HIV infection;
       ``(2) whose income (as determined under the State plan 
     under this title with respect to disabled individuals) does 
     not exceed the maximum amount of income a disabled individual 
     described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain 
     medical assistance under the plan; and
       ``(3) whose resources (as determined under the State plan 
     under this title with respect to disabled individuals) do not 
     exceed the maximum amount of resources a disabled individual 
     described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain 
     medical assistance under the plan.''.
       (b) Enhanced Match.--The first sentence of section 1905(b) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)'' and inserting 
     ``subclause (XVIII) or (XX) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1)--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (xii);
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (xiii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (xiii) the following:
       ``(xiv) individuals described in section 1902(dd);''.
       (d) Exemption From Funding Limitation for Territories.--
     Section 1108(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1308(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Disregarding medical assistance for optional low-
     income hiv-infected individuals.--The limitations under 
     subsection (f)

[[Page 6244]]

     and the previous provisions of this subsection shall not 
     apply to amounts expended for medical assistance for 
     individuals described in section 1902(dd) who are only 
     eligible for such assistance on the basis of section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XX).''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether 
     or not final regulations to carry out such amendments have 
     been promulgated by such date.
                                  ____



                                     HIV Medicine Association,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 30, 2007.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: I am writing on behalf of 
     the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) to offer our strong 
     support for the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA). HIVMA 
     represents more than 3,500 HIV medical providers from across 
     the United States. Many of our members serve on the front 
     lines of the HIV epidemic providing care and treatment in 
     communities ranging from the rural South to the large urban 
     areas on the east and west coasts of the nation.
       As you know, ETHA would allow states to expand their 
     Medicaid programs to cover people with HIV disease, before 
     they become disabled and progress to AIDS. This important 
     program change would allow more people with HIV disease to 
     benefit from the remarkable HIV treatment available today--
     treatment that has reduced mortality due to HIV disease by 
     nearly 80 percent.
       Many of our members still report high percentages of 
     patients with HIV presenting at their clinics with advanced 
     stage disease. These patients are often sicker; less 
     responsive to treatment and more costly due to the need for 
     more intensive interventions, such as inpatient 
     hospitalization. With earlier access to medical care and 
     treatment through Medicaid, these patients could remain 
     relatively healthy and enjoy longer and more productive 
     lives.
       Now is the time to help these patients and the many new 
     ones that will enter HIV care systems as a result of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) new 
     recommendations to make HIV testing a routine component of 
     medical care. While we are strong supporters of routine HIV 
     testing as a tool to promote earlier diagnosis and linkage to 
     care, we are concerned that our current federal and state 
     health care safety-net programs are ill-equipped to care for 
     the influx of patients that we expect to be identified 
     through routine HIV testing. Passage of ETHA would be a 
     critical step forward in the battle to ensure that all low-
     income Americans with HIV disease have the healthcare 
     coverage that will allow them to benefit from the lifesaving 
     HIV treatment widely available in the U.S. today.
       Thank you very much for your continued commitment to expand 
     access to care for low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS 
     and other vulnerable Americans. Please consider HIVMA a 
     resource as you move forward with the passage of this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Daniel R. Kuritzkes,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                        National Alliance of State


                                 & Territorial-AIDS Directors,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2007.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the National Alliance of 
     State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), I am writing 
     to offer our support for the ``Early Treatment for HIV Act.'' 
     NASTAD represents the nation's chief state and territorial 
     health agency staff who are responsible for HIV/AIDS 
     prevention, care and treatment programs funded by state and 
     federal governments. This legislation would give states an 
     important option in providing care and treatment services to 
     low-income Americans living with HIV.
       The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) would allow states 
     to expand their Medicaid programs to cover HIV positive 
     individuals, before they become disabled, without having to 
     receive a waiver. NASTAD believes this legislation would 
     allow HIV positive individuals to access the medical care 
     that is widely recommended, can postpone or avoid the onset 
     of AIDS, and can enormously increase the quality of life for 
     people living with HIV.
       State AIDS directors continue to develop innovative and 
     cost-effective HIV/AIDS programs in the face of devastating 
     state budget cuts and federal contributions that fail to keep 
     up with need. ETHA provides a solution to states by 
     increasing health care access for those living with HIV/AIDS.
       We would also like to commend the hard work of your staff, 
     particularly Matt Canedy who has been extremely helpful on a 
     myriad of HIV/AIDS policy issues. We look forward to working 
     with him to gain support for the legislation.
       Thank you very much for your continued commitment to 
     persons living with HIV/AIDS.
           Sincerely,
                                                Julie M. Scofield,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                           The Aids Institute,

                                 Washington, DC, January 29, 2007.
     Re the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA).

     Senator Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Hillary Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: The AIDS Institute 
     applauds you for your continued leadership and commitment to 
     people living with HIV/AIDS in our country who are in need of 
     lifesaving healthcare and treatment. While the HIV/AIDS 
     epidemic in sub-Sahara Africa and other parts of the world 
     often overshadow the epidemic in the United States, we must 
     not forget about the approximately 1.1 million people living 
     in the U.S. who have HIV or AIDS.
       Those infected with HIV are more likely to be low-income, 
     and the disease disproportionately impacts minority 
     communities. In fact, the AIDS case rate per 100,000 for 
     African Americans was 10 times that of whites in 2006. 
     According to a recent Institute of Medicine report titled, 
     ``Public Financing and Delivery of HIV/AIDS Care: Securing 
     the Legacy of the Ryan White CARE Act'', 233,000 of the 
     463,070 people living with HIV in the U.S. who need 
     antiretroviral treatment do not have ongoing access to 
     treatment. This does not include an additional 82,000 people 
     who are infected but unaware of their HIV status and are in 
     need of antiretroviral medications.
       One reason why there are so many people lacking treatment 
     is because under current law, Medicaid, the single largest 
     public payer of HIV/AIDS care in the U.S., only covers those 
     with full blown AIDS, and not those with HIV. The Early 
     Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), being re-introduced in this 
     Congress under your leadership, would rectify an archaic 
     mindset in the delivery of public health care. No longer 
     would a Medicaid eligible person with HIV have to become 
     disabled with AIDS to receive access to Medicaid provided 
     care and treatment.
       Providing coverage to those with HIV can prevent them from 
     developing AIDS, and allow them to live a productive life 
     with their family and be a healthy contributing member of 
     society. ETHA would provide states the option of amending 
     their Medicaid eligibility requirements to include uninsured 
     and under-insured, pre-disabled poor and low-income people 
     living with HIV. No state has to participate if they choose 
     not to. As all states have participated in the Breast and 
     Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, upon which ETHA 
     is modeled, we believe all States would opt to choose this 
     approach in treating those with HIV. States will opt into 
     this benefit not only because it is the medically and 
     ethically right thing to do, but because it is cost 
     effective, as well.
       A recent study prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers found 
     that if ETHA was enacted, over 10 years:
       --the death rate for persons living with HIV on Medicaid 
     would be reduced by 50 percent;
       --there would be 35,000 more individuals with CD4 levels 
     above 500 under ETHA versus the existing Medicaid system; and 
     it would
       --result in savings of $31.7 million.
       The AIDS Institute thanks you for your bipartisan 
     leadership by introducing ``The Early Treatment for HIV Act 
     of 2006''. It is the type of Medicaid reform that is 
     critically needed to update the program to keep current with 
     the Federal Government's guidelines for treating people with 
     HIV.
       We were very pleased the US Senate passed an ETHA 
     demonstration project during the last Congress. In this 
     Congress, we hope ETHA will finally become a reality. We look 
     forward to working with you and your colleagues as it moves 
     toward enactment.
       Thank you very much.
           Sincerely,
                                              Dr. A. Gene Copello,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                  American Academy


                                              of HIV Medicine,

                                    Washington, DC, Jan. 22, 2007.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith and Senator Clinton: The American 
     Academy of HIV Medicine is an independent organization of HIV 
     specialists and others dedicated to promoting excellence in 
     HIV/AIDS care. As the largest independent organization of HIV 
     frontline providers, our 2,000 members provide direct care to 
     more than 340,000 HIV patients--more than two thirds of the 
     patients in active treatment for HIV disease.
       The Academy would like to thank and commend you for co-
     sponsoring the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA). We believe 
     this legislation would allow many HIV positive individuals 
     access to the quality medical care vital towards postponing 
     or avoiding the onset of AIDS, and be cost-effective in doing 
     so.

[[Page 6245]]

       ETHA addresses a flawed anomaly in the current Medicaid 
     system--that under current Medicaid rules people must become 
     disabled by AIDS before they can receive access to 
     Medicaidprovided care and treatment that could have prevented 
     them from becoming so ill in the first place. The U.S. Public 
     Health Service guidelines have consistently recommended for 
     several years that the treatment of HIV patients, before 
     their immune systems have been severely damaged by HIV, will 
     greatly or even prevent the disabling effects of HIV disease.
       ETHA would bring Medicaid eligibility rules in line with 
     the clinical standard of care for treating HIV disease, which 
     has changed dramatically over the last twenty years due to 
     the revolutionary and increasingly more simplified life-
     saving drug regimens. The science of HIV medicine is clear on 
     this point: Today, when appropriately treated, HIV can be 
     managed as a serious chronic illness; however, appropriate 
     treatment requires early and continuous access to highly-
     active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Preserving an immune 
     system is much more effective, if even possible, than 
     rebuilding one already destroyed. Patients who do not receive 
     proper treatment until they are diagnosed with AIDS may not 
     fully respond or benefit from treatment once it begins.
       The benefits of early treatment also extend to the 
     population at large. Good data (Quinn et al.; Porco et al.) 
     now supports what we have long suspected--that successful and 
     consistent treatment of the infected individual decreases a 
     patient's infectivity, further benefiting the health of the 
     American public and reducing the number of individuals 
     ultimately needing costly medical care.
       Beyond the public's health, the cost-benefits of this 
     bill's implementation are similarly clear. States that adopt 
     this option to their Medicaid program would likely see cost-
     savings to Medicaid by limiting costly hospital admissions 
     and reducing unnecessary, preventable illness. With reduced 
     morbidity, mortality and inpatient costs as a result of 
     state-of-the-art outpatient treatment, receiving early, 
     quality outpatient care is cost-effective (Valenti, 2001; 
     Freedberg et al. 2001) compared with the alternatives.
       Passage of the Early Treatment for HIV Act will save lives, 
     increase the length and quality of life for people living 
     with HIV/AIDS, help ensure their medical coverage, and save 
     money over time.
       We will work in vigorous support of this legislation, and 
     we appreciate your impressive leadership in doing the same.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Schouten,
     Chair.
                                  ____



                                               Project Inform,

                             San Francisco, CA, February 28, 2007.
     Re Support for Early Treatment for HIV Act

     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of Project Inform, a national 
     HIV/AIDS health care and treatment advocacy organization 
     based in San Francisco, we are writing to express our strong 
     support for the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA). We 
     commend you for your leadership in reintroducing this 
     important bipartisan legislation.
       ETHA would address a cruel irony in the current Medicaid 
     system. Currently most individuals with HIV must become 
     disabled by AIDS before they can receive access to Medicaid's 
     care and treatment programs that could have prevented them 
     from becoming so ill in the first place.
       ETHA would modernize this system by allowing states to 
     extend Medicaid coverage to low-income, pre-disabled people 
     living with HIV. It would assure early access to care and 
     treatment for thousands of people living with HIV across the 
     country. It would also help relieve the financial crisis 
     facing many discretionary HIV/AIDS programs, such as the AIDS 
     Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and other services funded by 
     the Ryan White CARE Act.
       Access to healthcare and treatment is a high priority for 
     Project Inform as it ranks in the top concerns we hear from 
     people through our treatment hotline and community meetings. 
     We need long-term solutions like ETHA to ensure that people 
     have the care and treatment they need to remain healthy and 
     productive for as long as possible.
       We greatly appreciate your longtime efforts on behalf of 
     people living with HIV/AIDS. If there is anything we can do 
     to help you with your efforts to pass this legislation, 
     please do not hesitate to let us know.
           Sincerely,
     Anne Donnelly,
       Director, Health Care Advocacy.
     Ryan Clary,
       Associate Director, Health Care Advocacy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS. (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
        Cornyn, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 863. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency funds; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 
2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with 
major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties 
currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and 
colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined 
me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on 
this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important 
piece of legislation.
  As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast 
of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the 
aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately, 
and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.
  The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In 
fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress, 
H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the 
Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because 
both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible 
against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report 
expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without 
amendment.
  Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that 
it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's 
efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other 
emergencies.''
  The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such 
as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the 
existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently 
obtain emergency disaster funds.
  After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that 
devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do 
everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets 
into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a 
financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers 
should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events. 
Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain 
emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.
  I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem. 
Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of 
loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever 
seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was 
astonishing.
  One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect 
Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the 
rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and 
she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous 
claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved 
ones in that terrible storm.
  Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina 
include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom 
victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly 
1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and 
disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the 
storm. People in jail were being sent checks.
  You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out 
to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I 
think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the 
truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything 
have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the 
streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be 
the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers 
and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.

[[Page 6246]]

  In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently 
obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also, 
in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a 
scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross. 
One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13 
different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA, 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual 
who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.
  As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged 
525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts 
around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The 
Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these crooks, but they 
have asked us for this additional tool. They have asked us to pass this 
legislation so that the Federal statute adequately addresses and deters 
fraud in connection with emergency disaster assistance.
  The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make 
any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them 
and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever 
going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality. 
We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these 
disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of 
people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss 
should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who 
steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and 
punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of 
crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the 
American people who intended to help those in need.
  The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office 
investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the 
billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO 
saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.
  Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden 
and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm, 
and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day 
after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up 
and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line, 
and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what 
had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:

       Senator, all I have is what is on my back.

  Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help 
people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail 
claiming they deserve displaced housing money.
  So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an 
insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer. 
Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity 
for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate 
victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer 
financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are 
extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be 
expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their 
generosity.
  In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically 
prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit--
including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my 
bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found 
in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the 
bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though, 
changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or 
disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are 
currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial 
institutions.
  My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed 
at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or 
destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I 
recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked 
by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at 
Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.
  I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I 
was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young 
people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10 
minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I 
talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they 
suffered.
  Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say 
this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from 
those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it 
is a despicable crime, to me.
  The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama 
localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my 
home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his 
family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss 
of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being 
declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive 
Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money 
goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as 
victims.
  I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost 
loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough 
to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal 
Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must 
ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real 
victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.
  It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the 
relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising. 
I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I 
have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.
  Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure 
that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we 
give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and 
to protect American taxpayers.
  By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal 
that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis 
is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We 
will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster 
victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the 
generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by 
criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.
  I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a 
bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and 
the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring 
the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking 
forward to an analysis of it.
  We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that 
may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move 
forward with.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 864. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to clarify the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to 
Competitive Power Act of 2007 with my friend and colleague, Senator 
Mitch McConnell.
  I have spent years negotiating and working with the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. I have long believed we could work together to address the 
problems facing my customers in Kentucky. But every time I think I see 
the light at the

[[Page 6247]]

end of the tunnel, representatives of TVA change their offer or make up 
a new rule.
  I was optimistic that the expanded Board of Directors of the TVA 
Congress authorized last session would be able to change the problems 
of the past. But after many meetings and negotiations, I am convinced 
that TVA believes it has monopoly status and does not answer to anyone.
  Today, I am telling TVA that the people of Kentucky deserve better.
  For too long the TVA has acted against the best interests of the 
people of Kentucky. Five electric distributors, Paducah, Princeton, 
Warren County, Glasgow and Monticello, gave their notice to TVA to 
leave the system when they realized they could get cheaper electricity 
on the open market--and save their customers millions of dollars.
  During the past few years, they have negotiated in good faith for 
basic services that are considered routine in the utility industry. But 
unfortunately, the electric customers of Kentucky are stuck on the TVA 
island. We forced them onto that island 75 years when we created the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. Their options are limited and they are 
wholly reliant on TVA for generation and transmission service. TVA 
knows this--and that is why they have continued to stall on providing 
reasonable services.
  But the distributors who still intend to leave will now build 
hundreds of miles of new high voltage power lines to get access to the 
national electric grid. One may even need to run the city on diesel 
generators. Despite these costs, the numbers show that their customers 
will still save money.
  The legislation I am introducing today, with Senator Mitch McConnell, 
will give FERC full jurisdiction in relation to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority--the same jurisdiction that FERC has over utilities 
throughout the country.
  Let me be clear--this legislation does not mandate contract language. 
It simply requires TVA to negotiate these services in good faith.
  It defines the rights of two classes of TVA distributors--those who 
provided notice of termination prior to calendar year 2007 and those 
who did not provide notice.
  For distributors in Kentucky and Tennessee who have previously given 
notice that they would like to leave TVA service, this legislation 
would put their rights into law.
  Specifically, it would allow them to negotiate partial requirements 
services--making sure that TVA is not an all or nothing deal. For some 
customers it may make sense to get some power from TVA and some power 
from another generator.
  It also requires TVA to provide transmission service for these 
customers. Because of Federal law, TVA is their only access point to 
the national electric grid. As such, they should provide reasonable 
transmission service.
  It prevents TVA from charging these customers for stranded costs or 
imposing a reintegration fee and provides the customers the right to 
rescind their notice of termination if they ultimately decide they 
would like to stay with TVA.
  And lastly, it allows everyone who enjoys the benefits of cheap, 
Federal power from the Power Marketing Administrations to retain a 
right to that power regardless of whether or not they choose to be a 
customer of TVA.
  For all those customers who would like to stay in TVA, this 
legislation would give them the right to get partial requirements 
service from outside of TVA in an amount equal to TVA load growth.
  I also believe that it is time the Government looks closely at the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. That is why my legislation asks for two 
important G.A.O. studies. First, it commissions a comprehensive study 
on the privatization the Tennessee Valley Authority. Second, it 
requests an analysis of the debt level of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority.
  All Kentuckians deserve to choose where they receive their power. 
This bill will not only give them that choice, but it will also create 
a more competitive environment among Kentucky distributors and allow 
our businesses and residential consumers to keep more money in their 
pockets.
  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. 864

       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 ``Access to Competitive Power 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF EQUAL ACCESS AND TREATMENT WITH 
                   RESPECT TO FEDERAL POWER RESOURCES.

       Section 212(i) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824k(i)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
       (2) by striking the subsection designation and heading and 
     all that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) Establishment of Equal Access and Treatment With 
     Respect to Federal Power Resources.--
       ``(1) Definition of generator.--In this subsection, the 
     term `generator' means--
       ``(A) the Bonneville Power Administration;
       ``(B) the Southeastern Power Administration;
       ``(C) the Western Area Power Administration;
       ``(D) the Southwestern Power Administration; and
       ``(E) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
       ``(2) Authority and duties of commission.--
       ``(A) In general.--Pursuant to sections 210, 211, and 213, 
     the Commission--
       ``(i) may order the administrator or board of directors, as 
     applicable, of any generator to provide transmission service, 
     including by establishing the terms and conditions of the 
     service; and
       ``(ii) shall ensure that--

       ``(I) the provisions of otherwise applicable Federal laws 
     shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to 
     be applicable to the system;
       ``(II) the rates for the transmission of electric power on 
     the system of each Federal power marketing agency--

       ``(aa) are administered in accordance with applicable 
     Federal law, other than sections 210, 211, and 213; and
       ``(bb) are not unjust, unreasonable, or unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential, as determined by the 
     Commission.
       ``(B) Tennessee valley authority rates.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Commission shall have jurisdiction over the rates, 
     terms, and conditions of the provision of transmission 
     service in interstate commerce by the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority.
       ``(ii) Tariff.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     pursuant to sections 205 and 206, the Board of Directors of 
     the Tennessee Valley Authority shall have on file with the 
     Commission an open access transmission tariff that contains 
     just, reasonable, and not unduly preferential or 
     discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions for the provision 
     of transmission service in interstate commerce by the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
       (A) by striking ``(3) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Procedure for determinations.--Notwithstanding'';
       (B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``of a Federal power marketing agency'' after ``service''; 
     and
       (C) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``when the Administrator of the Bonneville 
     Power Administration either'' and inserting ``if the 
     Administrator of any Federal power marketing agency''; and
       (ii) by striking ``on the Federal Columbia River 
     Transmission System'';
       (4) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
       (A) by striking ``(4) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) Judicial review.--Notwithstanding'';
       (B) by striking ``the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
     Administration'' and inserting ``the Administrator of a 
     Federal power marketing agency''; and
       (C) by striking ``United States Court of Appeals'' and all 
     that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting 
     ``United States court of appeals of jurisdiction of the 
     Federal power marketing agency.'';
       (5) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``(5) To the extent the Administrator of the 
     Bonneville Power Administration'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(5) Exception.--To the extent that an Administrator of a 
     Federal power marketing agency'';
       (6) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
       (A) by striking ``(6) The Commission'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(6) Prohibition.--The Commission''; and

[[Page 6248]]

       (B) by striking ``the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
     Administration'' and inserting ``the Administrator of a 
     Federal power marketing agency''.

     SEC. 3. EQUITABILITY WITHIN TERRITORY RESTRICTED ELECTRIC 
                   SYSTEMS.

       Section 212(j) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824k(j)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``With respect to'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     with respect to'';
       (2) by striking ``electric utility:'' and all that follows 
     through ``electric utility.'' and inserting ``electric 
     utility.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) and subsection (f) shall 
     not apply to any area served at retail by a distributor 
     that--
       ``(A) on October 24, 1992, served as a distributor for an 
     electric utility described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) before December 31, 2006, provided to the Commission 
     a notice of termination of the power supply contract between 
     the distributor and the electric utility, regardless of 
     whether the notice was later withdrawn or rescinded.
       ``(3) Stranded costs.--An electric utility described in 
     paragraph (1) that provides transmission service pursuant to 
     an order of the Commission or a contract may not recover any 
     stranded cost associated with the provision of transmission 
     services to a distributor.
       ``(4) Rights of distributors.--
       ``(A) Notice not provided.--A distributor described in 
     paragraph (2) that did not provide a notice described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) by December 31, 2006, may--
       ``(i) construct, own, and operate any generation facility, 
     individually or jointly with another distributor; and
       ``(ii) receive from any electric utility described in 
     paragraph (1) partial requirements services, unless the 
     cumulative quantity of energy provided by the electric 
     utility exceeds a ratable limit that is equal to a proxy for 
     load growth on the electric utility, based on--

       ``(I) the total quantity of energy sold by each affected 
     agency, corporation, or unit of the electric utility during 
     calendar year 2006; and
       ``(II) a 3-percent compounded annual growth rate.

       ``(B) Notice provided.--
       ``(i) In general.--A distributor described in paragraph (2) 
     that provided a notice described in paragraph (2)(B) by 
     December 31, 2006, may--

       ``(I) construct, own, and operate any generation facility, 
     individually or jointly with another distributor;
       ``(II) receive from any electric utility described in 
     paragraph (1) partial requirements services;
       ``(III) receive from any electric utility described in 
     paragraph (1) transmission services that are sufficient to 
     meet all electric energy requirements of the distributor, 
     regardless of whether an applicable contract, or any portion 
     of such a contract, has been terminated under this section; 
     and
       ``(IV) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph, elect to rescind the notice of termination 
     of the distributor without the imposition of a reintegration 
     fee or any similar fee.

       ``(ii) Treatment.--On an election by a distributor under 
     clause (i)(IV), the distributor shall be entitled to all 
     rights and benefits of a distributor described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Right to retain access to services.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Affected distributor.--The term `affected 
     distributor' means a distributor that receives any electric 
     service or power from at least 2 generators.
       ``(ii) Generator.--The term `generator' means an entity 
     referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of 
     subsection (i)(1).
       ``(B) Retention of services.--An affected distributor may 
     elect to retain any electric service or power provided by a 
     generator, regardless of whether an applicable contract, or 
     any portion of such a contract, has been terminated under 
     this section.
       ``(C) Effect of notice of termination.--
       ``(i) In general.--The provision or execution by an 
     affected distributor of a notice of termination described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) with 1 generator shall not affect the 
     quantity of electric service or power provided to the 
     affected distributor by another generator.
       ``(ii) Price.--The price of electric services or power 
     provided to an affected distributor described in clause (i) 
     shall be equal to the price charged by the applicable 
     generator for the provision of similar services or power to a 
     distributor that did not provide a notice described in 
     paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(D) Transmission service.--On an election by an affected 
     distributor under subparagraph (B) to retain an electric 
     service or power, the affected distributor shall be entitled 
     to receive from a generator transmission service to 1 or more 
     delivery points of the affected distributor, as determined by 
     the affected distributor, regardless of whether an applicable 
     contract, or any portion of such a contract, has been 
     terminated under this section.''.

     SEC. 4. STUDY OF PRIVATIZATION OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the costs, benefits, and other 
     effects of privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report that describes the 
     results of the study conducted under this section.

     SEC. 5. STUDY OF DEBT LEVEL OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the financial structure of, and the 
     amount of debt held by, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which 
     (as of February 1, 2007) is approximately $25,000,000,000.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report that describes the 
     results of the study conducted under this section.

                          ____________________