[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7032-7045]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. 
        Roberts):
  S. 946. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 to reauthorize the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program. I would like to thank Senator Dole for leading 
this effort in the Senate with me.
  This is a critical piece of legislation. The McGovern-Dole Program 
provides healthy, nutritious meals to children living in some of the 
most impoverished countries in the world. By combining food aid and 
education, this program has a dramatic effect on the health and 
development of millions of young children each year.
  I first became interested in this program in 2000 when I read an 
editorial written by former Senator George McGovern titled Lunch for 
All Schoolchildren Is a Big Thing We Can Do. In that editorial, Senator 
McGovern laid out his reasoning for an international school feeding 
program and left us all with a challenge by asking, ``is there any 
higher purpose under the heaven than feeding all God's children the 
world around?''
  It was his work alongside Senator Bob Dole that inspired President 
Clinton in 2000 to create the Global Food for Education Initiative 
(GFEI) pilot program and fund it at $300 million. Since then, funding 
for the program has fluctuated but it has never again reached the level 
at which it started. Still, in a relatively short period of time, the 
McGovern-Dole Program, as it appropriately came to be called after the 
expiration of the GFEI pilot program, has benefited more than 26 
million boys and girls in 41 countries around the world. Last year 
alone, the program served more than 2.5 million children living in a 
total of 15 countries, including Afghanistan, Senegal, Laos, Guinea-
Bissau, and Bolivia.
  The program is a tremendous investment in the lives of the world's 
children. For just 19 cents per day, or 34 dollars per year, we are 
able to provide a healthy meal to a hungry child. This relatively 
modest investment does more than provide a meal--it also creates an 
incentive for children to come to school and learn and for families to 
continue to send their child to school rather than to work in a field 
or a factory. This is especially important for young girls in 
developing countries who are often not given the same educational 
opportunities as their male peers and therefore fall behind them in 
terms of literacy rates and educational attainment.
  In its effect on girls, the McGovern-Dole Program has performed 
exceedingly well. Young girls who participate in the program have a 17 
percent higher school attendance rate than similar girls who do not 
participate in school feeding programs. We know that educating young 
girls is one of the most cost-effective methods of achieving 
development goals. Compared to similarly situated girls who haven't 
gone to school, young girls who have been given the opportunity to go 
to school tend to get married later in life, have fewer children, earn 
more, and educate their children longer. It has a multiplier effect on 
a range of development goals.
  A healthy, nutritious meal gives all students a greater opportunity 
to take advantage of their learning environment. A stomach full of 
nutritious food has a significant effect on a child's academic 
performance, enjoyment of learning, and overall health.
  The United Nations estimates that there are 300 million chronically 
hungry school-age children around the world. We are falling far short 
of the need. When the American people provide our bountiful harvests to 
the most vulnerable among us, the poorest school-age children around 
the world, it represents the best of the American spirit.
  For these reasons, I am happy to be introducing legislation to 
reauthorize the McGovern-Dole Program and increase the authorized level 
of funding in an incremental fashion up to the $300 million level at 
which it was first funded.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 946

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

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL 
                   FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Administration of Program.--Section 3107 of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``The President shall designate 1 or more 
     Federal agencies to'' and inserting ``The Secretary shall'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(2), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``implementing agency'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (3) in subsections (c)(2)(B), (f)(1), (h)(1) and (2), and 
     (i), by striking ``President'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 3107(l) of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1(l)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Use of commodity credit corporation funds.--Of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary 
     shall use to carry out this section--
       ``(A) not less than $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(B) not less than $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(C) not less than $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(D) not less than $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(E) not less than $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (3) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by 
     striking ``any Federal agency implementing or assisting'' and 
     inserting ``the Department of Agriculture or any other 
     Federal agency assisting''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Durbin, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 948. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
funding for the establishment of a program on children and the media 
within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to 
study the role and impact of electronic media in the development of 
children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senators Brownback, Clinton, Durbin, and Casey, the Children and Media 
Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. This bill is identical to S. 
1902 that passed the Senate unanimously last year except that it houses 
our program at the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development.
  Children today live and develop in a world of media. Electronic 
media, including DVD's, video games, digital music, the Internet, 
television, motion pictures, and cell phones, are now everywhere and 
under constant change. Research needs to keep up with the technology, 
from its positive impacts such as language development in children with 
delays, to possible adverse effects, from obesity to muscular-skeletal 
disorders. The CAMRA Act supports exploration and analysis on the 
impact of electronic media in children's and adolescents' development. 
Based on recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences panel, 
researchers will look at both the positive

[[Page 7033]]

and negative impacts on children's cognitive, social, emotional, 
physical and behavioral development.
  Electronic media, in all its forms, influences and affects young 
people. It has the potential to produce benefits and harms. Numerous 
studies show increased aggressive behavior in children following 
interaction with violent video games. We need to move research beyond 
these studies to learn, for example, how new interactive technologies 
can best support and enhance traditional learning while making certain 
that these new technologies, and marketing increasingly targeted at 
children through these technologies, do not damage children's long-term 
health.
  Televisions have been common in households for half a century and 
television still dominates the total amount of time children devote to 
electronic media. One report links television viewing at an early age 
with later symptoms that are common in children with attention deficit 
disorders. However, we don't know the direct relationship, if any. Does 
television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have 
attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging 
than children who don't have attention problems? Or do parents of 
children with attention disorders let them watch more television to 
encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet 
experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across 
different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? 
Can interactive media positively influence those with attention 
deficits? Once again, we don't know the answers.
  Does television cause autism? That's the title of a recent Cornell 
University study showing a correlation between the alarming rising 
incidence of autism and increases in television viewing. Again, we 
don't know the direct relationship, if it exists. If early television 
exposure does alter normal brain development, we need to understand 
this to protect children in the future.
  Half of the Nation's children live in homes with three or more 
televisions with access, in many cases, to hundreds of channels ranging 
from Fashion TV to Spike TV. The American Academy of Pediatrics 
discourages television watching for children under two, promoting 
instead other activities, for example reading together and playing, for 
proper brain development. Yet three in five children under one year of 
age watch TV, or other screen media such as DVD players, for an average 
of one and one-third hours a day. For four to six year olds, these 
numbers increase to 90 percent watching TV for an average of over two 
hours a day.
  Young people over 8 years old use electronic media, on average, for 
over 6 hours each day. How does this investment of time affect 
children's physical development, their cognitive development, or their 
moral values? Unfortunately, we still have very limited information 
about how media, particularly the newer interactive media, affect 
children's development.
  American advertisers spend $15 billion a year on marketing to 
children under 12, twice the amount from a decade ago. Most of the 
advertising to kids is for candy, soda, cereal and fast food; and most 
of the food brands advertising to children on TV use branded websites 
to market to children online. These sites most often include online 
games, access to the TV commercials, and encouragement for kids to 
contact their peers about the products. Is this affecting the health of 
America's children?
  Consider our current national health crisis where about one in six 
children are overweight. The number of overweight children and 
teenagers in the U.S. has more than tripled over the last four decades. 
The public, through Medicare and Medicaid, pays about $39 billion per 
year for medical care relating to childhood and adult obesity. In 2000, 
the Surgeon General estimated the total economic cost of obesity in the 
United States to be $117 billion. And the number of overweight children 
continues to increase.
  Beyond the enormous medical costs come later health problems and 
perhaps reduced life expectancies. We think that media exposure is 
partly the cause of this epidemic. Is it? A recent 2007 study from the 
Harvard Medical School found that more time for three year olds in 
front of a TV leads to more sugary drinks and calories. Is this true 
for younger and older children? Is time spent viewing screens and its 
accompanying sedentary lifestyles contributing to childhood and 
adolescent obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements 
for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade 
children's television advertisements the culprit? What will happen when 
junk food advertisements begin to pop-up on children's cell phones? How 
do the newer online forms of ``stealth marketing'', such as food 
products packaged with computer games, affect children's and 
adolescents' consumption patterns? We have more questions than answers.
  On another subject, many of us believe that our children are becoming 
increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and 
the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain 
materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. Recent research using brain-
mapping techniques finds that an adult who sees images of desired 
products demonstrates patterns of brain activation that are typically 
associated with reaching out with a hand. How does repeatedly seeing 
attractive products affect our children and their developing brains? As 
Internet access expands from the desktop computer to other devices, 
including televisions, what will happen when our children will be able 
to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that 
advertise the products that they see in their favorite programs or use 
their cell phones to pay immediately for products marketed directly at 
them? Exactly what kind of values are we cultivating in our children, 
and what role does exposure to media content play in the development of 
those values?
  We want no child left behind in the 21st century. Many of us believe 
that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them 
the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we 
right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with 
television? What are the underlying mechanisms that facilitate or 
disrupt children's learning from these varying media? Can academic 
development be fostered by the use of interactive online programs 
designed to teach as they entertain?
  In the first six years of life, Caucasian more so than African 
American or Latino children have Internet access from their homes. Can 
our newer interactive media help ensure that no child is left behind, 
or will disparities in access result in leaving some behind and not 
others?
  Interactive computer programs may be of enormous benefits to English 
language learners. In addition, electronic media can allow children 
with disabilities to learn, discover, and interact with others in ways 
not before possible. What are the best ways to help English language 
learners and children with various disabilities learn?
  The questions about how media affect the development of our children 
are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the 
answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our 
knowledge limit our ability to make informed decisions about media 
policy.
  We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held 
numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media 
violence affects childhood aggression. We passed legislation such as 
the Children's Television Act, which requires broadcasters to provide 
educational and informational television programs for children. Can we 
cultivate children's moral values through prosocial programs resulting 
from the Children's Television Act, that promote helping, sharing, and 
cooperating?
  We acted to protect our children from unfair commercial practices by 
passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which provides 
safeguards from exploitation for our youth as they explore the 
Internet. Yet the Internet is providing new and evolving ways to reach 
children with marketing,

[[Page 7034]]

making our ability to protect our children all the more difficult.
  We worry about our children's inadvertent exposure to online 
pornography and about how that kind of exposure may undermine their 
moral values and standards of decency. In these halls of Congress, we 
acted to protect our children by passing the Communications Decency 
Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet 
Protection Act to shield children from exposure to sexually explicit 
online content that is deemed harmful to minors. While we all agree 
that we need to protect our children from online pornography, we know 
very little about how to address even the most practical of questions 
such as how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers 
who approach them online.
  To ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the 
behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we 
make should be based on objective scientific research. Yet no Federal 
research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a 
coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. 
Instead, Federal agencies fund electronic media research in a piecemeal 
fashion, resulting in a patch work of findings that often do not span 
disciplines and address complex questions. We must do better than that.
  The bill we are introducing today remedies this problem. The CAMRA 
Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a 
program devoted to Children and Media within the National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development. This program of research, to be 
vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a 
coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in 
children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral 
development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media and 
will encourage research involving children of all ages--even babies and 
toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the 
effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our 
knowledge. To accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million 
dollars to be phased in gradually across the next five years. The cost 
to our budget is minimal and can well result in significant savings in 
other budget areas.
  Our Nation values the positive, healthy development of our children. 
Our children live in the information age, and our country has one of 
the most powerful and sophisticated technology systems in the world. 
While this system entertains them, it is not always harmless 
entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy 
growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a 
stake in finding out exactly what that role is. We have a 
responsibility to take action. Access to the knowledge that we need for 
informed decision-making requires us to make an investment: an 
investment in research, an investment in and for our children, and an 
investment in our collective futures. The benefits to our youth and our 
Nation's families are immeasurable.
  By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can 
advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while 
minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that 
are grounded in solid, scientific knowledge. We can be proactive, 
rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our 
youth, fostering the kinds of values that are the backbone of this 
great nation of ours, and we create a better foundation to guide future 
media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our 
children's daily lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 948

       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 ``Children and Media Research 
     Advancement Act'' or the ``CAMRA Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to enable the National 
     Institute of Child Health and Human Development to--
       (1) examine the role and impact, both positive and 
     negative, of electronic media in children's and adolescents' 
     cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral 
     development; and
       (2) provide for a report to Congress containing the 
     empirical evidence and other results produced by the research 
     funded through grants under this Act.

     SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA 
                   IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS.

       Subpart 7 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285g et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 452H. RESEARCH ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC 
                   MEDIA IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN AND 
                   ADOLESCENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary, acting through the Director of 
     the Institute), shall enter into a contract with the National 
     Academy of Sciences, in collaboration with the Institute of 
     Medicine or another appropriate entity to review, synthesize, 
     and report on research, and establish research priorities, 
     regarding the roles and impact of electronic media (including 
     television, motion pictures, DVD's, interactive video games, 
     digital music, the Internet, and cell phones) and exposures 
     to such media on youth in the following core areas of 
     development:
       ``(1) Cognitive.--Cognitive areas such as language 
     development, attention span, problem solving skills (such as 
     the ability to conduct multiple tasks or `multitask'), visual 
     and spatial skills, reading, and other learning abilities.
       ``(2) Physical.--Physical areas such as physical 
     coordination, diet, exercise, sleeping and eating routines.
       ``(3) Socio-behavioral.--Socio-behavioral areas such as 
     family activities and peer relationships including indoor and 
     outdoor play time, interactions with parents, consumption 
     habits, social relationships, aggression, and positive social 
     behavior.
       ``(b) Research Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Taking into account the report provided 
     for under subsection (a), the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, award grants for research concerning the role 
     and impact of electronic media on the cognitive, physical, 
     and socio-behavioral development of youth.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The research provided for under 
     paragraph (1) shall comply with the following requirements:
       ``(A) Such research shall focus on the impact of factors 
     such as media content (whether direct or indirect), format, 
     length of exposure, age of youth, venue, and nature of 
     parental involvement.
       ``(B) Such research shall not duplicate other Federal 
     research activities.
       ``(C) For purposes of such research, electronic media shall 
     include television, motion pictures, DVD's, interactive video 
     games, digital music, the Internet, and cell phones.
       ``(3) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, an entity shall--
       ``(A) prepare and submit to the Director an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Director shall require; and
       ``(B) agree to use amounts received under the grant to 
     carry out activities as described in this subsection.
       ``(c) Reports.--
       ``(1) Report to the director.--Not later than 15 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, the report 
     provided for under subsection (a) shall be submitted to the 
     Director and to the appropriate committees of Congress.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than December 31, 
     2013, the Secretary, acting through the Director, shall 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     a report that--
       ``(A) synthesizes the results of--
       ``(i) research carried out under the grant program under 
     subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) other related research, including research conducted 
     by the private or public sector and other Federal entities; 
     and
       ``(B) outlines existing research gaps in light of the 
     information described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, 
     $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lott, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida, and Ms. Murkowski):

[[Page 7035]]

  S. 950. A bill to develop and maintain an integrated system of 
coastal and ocean observations for the Nation's coasts, oceans, and 
Great Lakes, to improve warnings of tsunami, hurricanes, El Nino 
events, and other natural hazards, to enhance homeland security, to 
support maritime operations, to improve management of coastal and 
marine resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal and 
Ocean Observation System Act of 2007. This bill will enhance our 
Nation's existing ocean observation infrastructure and drastically 
improve our understanding of the marine environment.
  Oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface, and have 
great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate 
systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, 
sustain rich living and non-living resources on which many of our 
livelihoods are based, and provide our Nation over 95,000 miles of 
shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities 
in many of our coastal States. Despite the constant, intricate 
interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the 
ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the 
overwhelming majority of our planet. What lies over the horizon 
remains, by most accounts, a mystery.
  And yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. 
In recent years, we have experienced first-hand the destruction the 
ocean can bring through disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
here in the United States, and the Indian Ocean tsunami felt in 
Indonesia and parts of Asia. We have the technology to monitor a wide 
range of ocean-based threats, from destructive storms to quieter 
dangers such as harmful algal blooms and manmade pollution. The purpose 
of this legislation is to put that technology to work predicting these 
threats more accurately and, when possible, mitigate their impacts.
  This bipartisan, science-based bill would authorize the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an 
interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around 
our nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data 
and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, 
wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and 
other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource 
management and can be used to improve maritime transportation, safety, 
and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that 
can mitigate impacts of major disasters, and prediction and scientific 
analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends.
  My home State of Maine currently participates in an innovative 
partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or 
GoMOOS. Launched in 2001, GoMOOS takes ocean and surface condition 
measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys. 
These data are subsequently made available via the GoMOOS website to 
scientists, students, vessel captains, fishermen, and anyone else with 
an interest in our oceans. The system continues to expand, with the 
11th buoy in the system launched in December of 2006. The vast 
geographical range and frequency of measurements has led to 
unprecedented developments in scientific analysis of ocean conditions 
in the Gulf of Maine. It has also contributed invaluable information to 
our region's assessments of fisheries, weather conditions, and 
predictions of other ocean phenomena.
  Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited 
to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems have been developed in 
other coastal regions as well. Data from these various systems, 
however, are often incompatible with one another, making it difficult 
to compile, manage, process, and communicate data across networks. As a 
result, these disparate systems may be unable to link their data and 
develop a comprehensive national picture of coastal and ocean 
conditions.
  The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2007 would rectify 
this situation by establishing, in cooperation with NOAA, an integrated 
system of ocean observing efforts. The bill would encourage creation of 
systems in areas that do not currently have one in place or in 
development, enable the data from all systems to be integrated and 
accessible through a national network, and facilitate timely public 
warnings of hazardous ocean conditions or events. Oversight of the 
program would be the responsibility of the National Ocean Research 
Leadership Council, a group comprised of the heads of fifteen Federal 
agencies that play roles in formulation of ocean policy. The Council 
would establish an interagency partnership to plan and coordinate 
activities, with NOAA serving as the lead Federal agency ensuring that 
the national network effectively integrates, utilizes, and publicizes 
ocean data to the benefit of the American public.
  In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, made up of 
members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean 
Policy, presented to Congress a list of the ``top ten'' actions 
Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy regime. One of 
those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize and fund the 
Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' Ocean and coastal observations are 
a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce. This 
bill will save lives by allowing seafarers to better monitor ocean 
conditions and providing timelier and more accurate predictions of 
potentially catastrophic weather and seismic phenomena. It will save 
taxpayers' dollars by reducing the emergency spending that comes in the 
wake of unanticipated storms, and it will enhance the appreciation and 
understanding of our oceans and coastal regions to benefit all 
Americans.
  I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my 
co-sponsors, Senators Cantwell, Inouye, Stevens, Boxer, Cardin, Kerry, 
Menendez, Collins, Lautenberg, Lott, Feinstein, Nelson, and Murkowski 
for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national 
initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and 
communication system would not be possible without the work of 
dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, 
and research communities--they have taken the initiative to develop the 
grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this 
legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will 
continue to provide a tremendous service to the American public.
  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. 950

       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 ``Coastal and Ocean 
     Observation System Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States Commission on Ocean Policy recommends 
     a national commitment to a sustained and integrated coastal 
     and ocean observing system and to coordinated research 
     programs which would provide vital information to assist the 
     Nation and the world in understanding, monitoring, and 
     predicting changes to the ocean and coastal resources and the 
     global climate system, enhancing homeland security, improving 
     weather and climate forecasts, strengthening management and 
     sustainable use of coastal and ocean resources, improving the 
     safety and efficiency of maritime operations, and mitigating 
     the impacts of marine hazards.
       (2) The continuing and potentially devastating threat posed 
     by tsunami, hurricanes, storm surges, and other marine 
     hazards requires immediate implementation of strengthened 
     observation and communications, and data management systems 
     to provide timely detection, assessment, and warnings and to 
     support response strategies for the millions of people living 
     in coastal regions of the United States and throughout the 
     world.

[[Page 7036]]

       (3) Safeguarding homeland security, conducting search and 
     rescue operations, responding to natural and manmade coastal 
     hazards (such as oil spills and harmful algal blooms), and 
     managing fisheries and other coastal activities each require 
     improved understanding and monitoring of the Nation's waters, 
     coastlines, ecosystems, and resources, including the ability 
     to provide rapid response teams with real-time environmental 
     conditions necessary for their work.
       (4) The 95,000-mile coastline of the United States, 
     including the Great Lakes, is vital to the Nation's 
     prosperity, contributing over $117 billion to the national 
     economy in 2000, supporting jobs for more than 200 million 
     Americans, handling $700 billion in waterborne commerce, and 
     supporting commercial and sport fisheries valued at more than 
     $50 billion annually.
       (5) Ensuring the effective implementation of National and 
     State programs to protect unique coastal and ocean habitats, 
     such as wetlands and coral reefs, and living marine resources 
     requires a sustained program of research and monitoring to 
     understand these natural systems and detect changes that 
     could jeopardize their long term viability.
       (6) Many elements of a coastal and ocean observing system 
     are in place, but require national investment, consolidation, 
     completion, and integration among international, Federal, 
     regional, State, and local elements.
       (7) In 2003, the United States led more than 50 nations in 
     affirming the vital importance of timely, reliable, long-term 
     global observations as a basis for sound decision-making, 
     recognizing the contribution of observation systems to meet 
     national, regional, and global needs, and calling for 
     strengthened cooperation and coordination in establishing a 
     Global Earth Observation System of Systems, of which an 
     integrated coastal and ocean observing system is an essential 
     part.
       (8) Protocols and reporting for observations, measurements, 
     and other data collection for a coastal and ocean observing 
     system should be standardized to facilitate data use and 
     dissemination.
       (9) Key variables, including temperature, salinity, sea 
     level, surface currents, and ocean color, should be collected 
     to address a variety of informational needs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to establish an 
     integrated national system of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 
     observing systems to address regional and national needs for 
     ocean information and to provide for--
       (1) the planning, development, implementation, and 
     maintenance of an integrated coastal and ocean observing 
     system that provides data and information to sustain and 
     restore healthy marine, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems 
     and manage the resources they support, aid marine navigation 
     safety and national security, support economic development, 
     enable advances in scientific understanding of the oceans and 
     the Great Lakes, and strengthen science education and 
     communication;
       (2) implementation of research, development, education, and 
     outreach programs to improve understanding of the marine 
     environment and achieve the full national benefits of an 
     integrated coastal and ocean observing system;
       (3) implementation of a data, information management, and 
     modeling system required by all components of an integrated 
     coastal and ocean observing system and related research to 
     develop early warning systems to more effectively predict and 
     mitigate impacts of natural hazards, improve weather and 
     climate forecasts, conserve healthy and restore degraded 
     coastal ecosystems, and ensure usefulness of data and 
     information for users; and
       (4) establishment of a network of regional associations to 
     operate and maintain regional coastal and ocean observing 
     systems to ensure fulfillment of national objectives at 
     regional scales and to address state and local needs for 
     ocean information and data products.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National Ocean 
     Research Leadership Council established by section 7902 of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (3) Integrated ocean observing program office.--The term 
     ``Integrated Ocean Observing Program Office'' means a program 
     office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to integrate its ocean observing assets and 
     implement the requirements under section 4(d).
       (4) Interagency program office.--The term ``Interagency 
     Program Office'' means the office established under section 
     4(e).
       (5) National oceanographic partnership program.--The term 
     ``National Oceanographic Partnership Program'' means the 
     program established under section 7901 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (6) Observing system.--The term ``observing system'' means 
     the integrated coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes observing 
     system to be established by the Council under section 4(a).
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce, acting through the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration.

     SEC. 4. INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM.

       (a) Establishment.--The President, acting through the 
     Council, shall establish and maintain an integrated system of 
     coastal and ocean observations, data communication and 
     management, analysis, modeling, research, education, and 
     outreach designed to understand current conditions and 
     provide data and information for the timely detection and 
     prediction of changes occurring in the ocean, coastal and 
     Great Lakes environment that impact the Nation's social, 
     economic, and ecological systems. The observing system shall 
     provide for long-term, continuous and quality-controlled 
     observations of the Nation's coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes 
     in order to--
       (1) understand the effects of human activities and natural 
     variability on and improve the health of the Nation's coasts, 
     oceans, and Great Lakes;
       (2) measure, track, explain, and predict climatic and 
     environmental changes and protect human lives and livelihoods 
     from hazards such as tsunami, hurricanes, storm surges, 
     coastal erosion, levy breaches, and fluctuating water levels;
       (3) supply critical information to marine-related 
     businesses such as marine transportation, aquaculture, 
     fisheries, and offshore energy production and aid marine 
     navigation and safety;
       (4) support national defense and homeland security efforts;
       (5) support the sustainable use, conservation, management, 
     and enjoyment of healthy ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 
     resources, better understand the interactions of ocean 
     processes within the coastal zone, and support implementation 
     and refinement of ecosystem-based management and restoration;
       (6) support the protection of critical coastal habitats, 
     such as coral reefs and wetlands, and unique ecosystems and 
     resources;
       (7) educate the public about the role and importance of the 
     oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes in daily life; and
       (8) support research and development to ensure improvement 
     to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observation measurements 
     and to enhance understanding of the Nation's ocean, coastal, 
     and Great Lakes resources.
       (b) System Elements.--In order to fulfill the purposes of 
     this Act, the observing system shall consist of the following 
     program elements:
       (1) A national program to fulfill national and 
     international observation priorities.
       (2) A network of regional associations to manage the 
     regional coastal and ocean observing and information programs 
     that collect, measure, and disseminate data and information 
     products.
       (3) Data management, communication, and modeling systems 
     for the timely integration and dissemination of data and 
     information products from the national and regional systems.
       (4) A research and development program conducted under the 
     guidance of the Council; including projects under the 
     National Oceanographic Partnership Program, consisting of the 
     following:
       (A) Basic research to advance knowledge of coastal and 
     ocean systems and ensure improvement of operational products, 
     including related infrastructure, observing technology, and 
     information technology.
       (B) Focused research and technology development projects to 
     improve understanding of the relationship between the coasts 
     and oceans and human activities.
       (C) Large scale computing resources and research to advance 
     modeling of coastal and ocean processes.
       (5) A coordinated outreach, education, and training program 
     that integrates and augments existing programs (such as the 
     National Sea Grant College Program, the Centers for Ocean 
     Sciences Education Excellence program, and the National 
     Estuarine Research Reserve System), to ensure the use of data 
     and information for improving public education and awareness 
     of the Nation's coastal and ocean environment and building 
     the technical expertise required to operate and improve the 
     observing system.
       (c) Council Functions.--The Council shall serve as the 
     oversight body for the design and implementation of all 
     aspects of the observing system. In carrying out its 
     responsibilities under this section, the Council shall--
       (1) adopt plans, budgets, and standards that are developed 
     and maintained by the Interagency Program Office in 
     consultation with the regional associations;
       (2) coordinate the observing system with other earth 
     observing activities including the Global Ocean Observing 
     System and the Global Earth Observing System of Systems;
       (3) coordinate and approve programs of intramural and 
     extramural research, technology development, education, and 
     outreach to support improvements to and the operation of an 
     integrated coastal and ocean observing system and to advance 
     the understanding of the oceans;
       (4) promote development of technology and methods for 
     improving the observing system;
       (5) support the development of institutional mechanisms and 
     financial instruments to further the goals of the program

[[Page 7037]]

     and provide for the capitalization of the required 
     infrastructure;
       (6) provide, as appropriate, support for and representation 
     on United States delegations to international meetings on 
     coastal and ocean observing programs, including those under 
     the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission 
     involving Canadian waters; and
       (7) in consultation with the Secretary of State, support 
     coordination of relevant Federal activities with those of 
     other nations.
       (d) Lead Federal Agency.--The National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration shall be the lead Federal agency 
     for implementation and administration of the observing system 
     and to carry out the responsibilities of this Act, in 
     consultation with the Council, the Interagency Program 
     Office, other Federal Agencies that maintain portions of the 
     observing system and the Regional Associations, shall--
       (1) establish an Integrated Ocean Observing Program Office;
       (2) integrate, improve, and extend existing programs and 
     research projects, and ensure that regional associations are 
     integrated into the operational observation system on a 
     sustained basis;
       (3) integrate the appropriate capabilities of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate 
     centers, into the observing system for the purpose of 
     assimilating, managing, disseminating, and archiving data 
     from regional observation systems and other observation 
     systems;
       (4) provide for the migration of scientific and 
     technological advances from research and development to 
     operational deployment;
       (5) provide for opportunities to contract with private 
     sector companies in designing, developing, integrating, and 
     deploying ocean observation system elements;
       (6) establish efficient and effective administrative 
     procedures for allocation of funds among Federal agencies, 
     contractors, grantees, and regional associations in a timely 
     manner, and contingent on appropriations according to the 
     budget adopted by the Council;
       (7) develop and implement a process for the certification 
     and assimilation into the national ocean observations network 
     of the regional associations and their periodic review and 
     recertification and certify regional associations that meet 
     the requirements of subsection (f); and
       (8) develop a data management and communication system, in 
     accordance with the established standards and protocols, by 
     which all data collected by the observing system regarding 
     coastal waters of the United States are integrated and 
     available.
       (e) Interagency Program Office.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Council shall establish an 
     Interagency Program Office housed within the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration.
       (2) Responsibilities.--The Interagency Program Office shall 
     be responsible for program planning and coordination of the 
     implementation of the observing system.
       (3) Duties.--The Interagency Program Office shall report to 
     the Council via the Secretary and shall--
       (A) prepare annual and long-term plans for consideration 
     and approval by the Council for the design and implementation 
     of the observing system that promote collaboration among 
     Federal agencies and regional associations in developing 
     global, national, and regional observing systems, including 
     identification and refinement of a core set of variables to 
     be measured by all systems;
       (B) coordinate the development of agency and regional 
     associations priorities and budgets to implement, operate, 
     and maintain the observing systems;
       (C) establish and refine standards and protocols for data 
     collection, management and communications, including quality 
     control standards, in consultation with participating Federal 
     agencies and regional associations; and
       (D) establish a process for assuring compliance for all 
     participating entities with the standards and protocols for 
     data management and communications, including quality control 
     standards.
       (f) Regional Associations of Coastal and Ocean Observing 
     Systems.--
       (1) The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 
     establish a process for the certification of regional 
     associations to be responsible for the development and 
     operation of regional coastal and ocean observing systems to 
     meet the information needs of user groups in the region while 
     adhering to national standards. To be certified a regional 
     association shall meet the certification standards developed 
     by the Interagency Program Office in conjunction with the 
     regional associations and approved by the Council and shall--
       (A) demonstrate an organizational structure capable of 
     supporting and integrating all aspects of coastal and ocean 
     observing and information programs within a region and that 
     reflects broad representation from state and local 
     government, commercial interests, and other users and 
     beneficiaries of marine information;
       (B) operate under a strategic operations and business plan 
     that details the operation and support of regional coastal 
     and ocean observing systems pursuant to the standards 
     approved by the Council; and
       (C) work with governmental entities and programs at all 
     levels to identify and provide information products of the 
     observing system for multiple users in the region to advance 
     outreach and education, to improve coastal and fishery 
     management, safe and efficient marine navigation, weather and 
     climate prediction, to enhance preparation for hurricanes, 
     tsunami, and other natural hazards, and other appropriate 
     activities.
       (2) For the purposes of this Act, employees of Federal 
     agencies may participate in the functions of the Regional 
     Associations.
       (g) Civil Liability.--For purposes of section 1346(b)(1) 
     and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, and chapters 
     309 and 311 of title 46, United States Code, any regional 
     coastal and ocean observing system that is a designated part 
     of a regional association certified under this section shall, 
     with respect to tort liability arising from the dissemination 
     and use of the data, in carrying out the purposes of this 
     Act, be deemed to be part of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, and any employee of such system, 
     while operating within the scope of his or her employment in 
     carrying out such purposes, shall be deemed to be an employee 
     of the Government.

     SEC. 5. PROCESS FOR TRANSITION FROM RESEARCH TO OPERATION.

       The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 
     consultation with the Council, shall formulate a process by 
     which--
       (1) funding is made available for intramural and extramural 
     research on new technologies for collecting data regarding 
     coastal and ocean waters of the United States;
       (2) such technologies are tested including--
       (A) accelerated research into biological and chemical 
     sensing techniques and satellite sensors for collecting such 
     data; and
       (B) developing technologies to improve all aspects of the 
     observing system, especially the timeliness and accuracy of 
     its predictive models and the usefulness of its information 
     products; and
       (3) funding is made available and a plan is developed and 
     executed to transition technology that has been demonstrated 
     to be useful for the observing system is incorporated into 
     use by the observing system.

     SEC. 6. INTERAGENCY FINANCING.

       The departments and agencies represented on the Council are 
     authorized to participate in interagency financing and share, 
     transfer, receive, obligate, and expend funds appropriated to 
     any member of the Council for the purposes of carrying out 
     any administrative or programmatic project or activity under 
     this Act or under the National Oceanographic Partnership 
     Program, including support for the Interagency Program 
     Office, a common infrastructure, and system integration for a 
     coastal and ocean observing system. Funds may be transferred 
     among such departments and agencies through an appropriate 
     instrument that specifies the goods, services, or space being 
     acquired from another Council member and the costs of the 
     same.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION WITH OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.

       Nothing in this Act supersedes, or limits the authority of 
     the Secretary of the Interior under, the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the implementation 
     of this Act, $150,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012 and such additional sums as may be necessary for 
     each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The Administrator 
     shall provide such sums as are necessary to the regional 
     associations certified under section 4(f) for implementation 
     of regional coastal and ocean observing systems. Sums 
     appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 9. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress and the 
     Council a plan for implementation of this Act, including 
     for--
       (1) coordinating activities of the Secretary under this Act 
     with other Federal agencies; and
       (2) distributing, to regional associations, funds available 
     to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 10. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall prepare and the President acting through 
     the Council shall approve and transmit to the Congress a 
     report on progress made in implementing this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include the following:
       (1) A description of activities carried out under the 
     implementation plan and this Act.
       (2) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the observing 
     system.
       (3) Benefits of the program to users of data products 
     resulting from the observing system (including the general 
     public, industry, scientists, resource managers, emergency 
     responders, policy makers, and educators).
       (4) Recommendations concerning--
       (A) modifications to the observing system; and
       (B) funding levels for the observing system in subsequent 
     fiscal years.

[[Page 7038]]

       (5) The results of a periodic external independent 
     programmatic audit of the observing system.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in 
introducing the Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007, 
which will make needed improvements to our national and regional ocean 
observing systems.
  The Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act would establish a 
national program to focus on national and international ocean observing 
priorities, and provide needed support for a network of regional 
associations that already collect and manage information in ocean and 
coastal areas across the nation.
  Currently, most long term ocean observing and data collection is 
carried out on a regional basis. While these regional ocean observing 
systems provide valuable data, lack of coordination at the national 
level and a lack of sustained resources have limited their 
effectiveness for advancing a comprehensive understanding of our oceans 
and coasts. The Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007 would 
help to rectify this by organizing regional activities under a federal 
interagency committee within NOAA.
  Improving long-term ocean observing and monitoring is a key 
recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and will provide 
the information needed to restore and sustain healthy ocean and coastal 
ecosystems. Specifically, this bill would bolster the Nation's ability 
to observe and monitor ocean conditions in order to improve tsunami 
warnings, better understand the impacts of climate change on the 
oceans, track ocean conditions that could impact human health, improve 
homeland security, and support maritime operations.
  Fishermen and mariners rely on accurate forecasts of ocean conditions 
for safety and navigation. An integrated ocean observing system would 
improve these forecasts and will save lives at sea. Ocean observing 
will also help authorities understand the link between ocean conditions 
and human health. For example, improved tracking of harmful algal 
blooms can minimize the risk of shellfish poisoning by warning people 
when the conditions exist that make harvesting shellfish dangerous.
  An integrated ocean and coastal observing system will prove an 
invaluable tool as we work to understand and overcome the challenges of 
climate change. The ocean covers 70 percent of the globe and plays a 
critical role in regulating our climate. Scientists are finding that 
the ocean environment is often the first of the earth's ecosystems to 
display the impacts of climate change.
  We've already detected some of these impacts, from ocean 
acidification's impacts on North Pacific food chains and coral reefs in 
the tropics, to seasonal ocean dead zones that are forming off the 
coast of Washington and Oregon. The effects of climate change will be 
felt by our fishermen and coastal communities, and ocean observing will 
give them the information they need to mitigate impacts.
  As we seek a better understanding of our oceans and coasts and the 
ecosystems that form the basis of life for much of the Earth's 
population, an integrated ocean observing system. will be an essential 
investment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Webb):
  S. 951. A bill to provide a waiver from sanctions under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for certain States, 
local educational agencies, and schools; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with 
my Virginia Senate colleague, Senator Webb, related to the No Child 
Left Behind Act. This legislation simply tries to hold certain schools 
harmless, for one year, from the sanction provisions under NCLB when 
such sanctions result solely because of bureaucratic problems with the 
implementation of the law.
  I am pleased to note that Congressman Tom Davis, Congressman Jim 
Moran, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Congresswoman Davis, and Congressman 
Rick Boucher have joined Senator Webb and me in introducing the same 
bill in the House of Representatives.
  While I firmly believe that the goals behind NCLB are solid, there 
have been some challenges with the regulatory implementation of this 
new law, particularly in Virginia. Most recently, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia and the U.S. Department of Education have reached an impasse 
with respect to how best to test students with limited English 
proficiency. While, at this moment, I do not cast blame for how we came 
to this impasse, the simple fact is that it could result in a number of 
schools in Virginia being sanctioned under the Federal law--not because 
our schools are underperforming, but rather as a consequence of 
bureaucracy. This is clearly not the intent of No Child Left Behind.
  No Child Left Behind was intended to put in place a strong 
accountability system by which the Federal Government would receive 
favorable results for the billions of Federal dollars it spends on 
education. The law was structured to ensure that all students are 
included in States' accountability systems, and was designed to reward 
those systems that achieve goals under the accountability system, and 
to sanction those that do not.
  Regrettably, in my view, if legislation is not passed and signed into 
law that recognizes the unique situation faced in Virginia, and perhaps 
other States, then public schools in Virginia, and perhaps around the 
country, will be punished through no fault of their own.
  Let me be more specific about what has occurred in my State. On June 
28, 2006, the Virginia Department of Education received notice from the 
U.S. Department of Education that the assessment that Virginia had used 
for years to test certain limited English proficiency students would no 
longer meet Federal requirements. The 2006-2007 academic school year 
started shortly thereafter, and, at that time, no alternative 
assessment had been approved.
  On December 11, 2006, representatives from the Virginia Board of 
Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction met with 
the U.S. Department of Education officials to discuss a one-year 
extension, by which Virginia would be permitted to use the same 
assessment it had used in prior years for testing LEP students. On 
January 4, 2007, the entire Virginia Congressional delegation sent a 
letter to Secretary Spellings supporting Virginia's request for a one-
year extension for using an alternative assessment for testing LEP 
students.
  On January 29, 2007, Secretary Spellings wrote back to me denying 
Virginia's request. On February 8, 2007, Deputy Secretary Ray Simon 
wrote to Virginia clarifying that, while the previous test may not be 
used, another assessment is expected to obtain approval.
  Well, today is March 21, 2007. To date, Virginia still does not have 
an approved alternative assessment, and our State assessments are 
scheduled to be given in less than a month. With no appropriate test 
approved for students to take this April, how can Virginia schools be 
expected to meet federal standards? How can our State and schools 
develop, prepare for, and administer a new test when we are well past 
the middle of the school year? Common sense begs for a reasonable 
solution.
  In the interim, several school divisions in Virginia have voted not 
to test the LEP students at all. In turn, the U.S. Department of 
Education has threatened to withhold from Virginia millions of Federal 
education dollars.
  The legislation that we introduce today is designed to allow the 
parties involved to take a step back, develop an acceptable assessment, 
appropriately train and educate students on it, and allow the Virginia 
educational system to move forward without being sanctioned in a way 
that is inconsistent with the NCLB Act.
  This legislation accomplishes these goals by holding schools, local 
education agencies, and States harmless

[[Page 7039]]

for one year from the sanctions provisions of NCLB if they meet certain 
criteria. Specifically a state must: (1) have had one or more approved 
academic assessment plans for the 2005-2006 school year; (2) have had 
one or more of such plans subsequently held invalid by the Department 
of Education for the 2006-2007 school year; and (3) have the Governor 
of the State certify, in writing, to the Secretary of Education that 
the State cannot effectively train its educators on a new or 
alternative assessment prior to the date the assessment is to be 
administered, and that the administration of a new or alternative 
assessment is not in the best interest of the public school system and 
the children the system serves.
  This ``hold-harmless'' provision would only apply to those schools 
and school divisions that fail to meet the Federal standards solely 
because of these logistical problems.
  Unlike other proposals that have recently been introduced with 
respect to No Child Left Behind, this measure would not exempt states 
from accountability, nor exempt States, school districts and schools 
from the requirements of NCLB. Our bill simply calls for the suspension 
of penalties for one year for those schools and districts that, through 
no fault of their own, are being set up for potential failure because 
of bureaucratic logistical problems. This will give the Commonwealth of 
Virginia and the Federal Government ample time to address the testing 
situation effectively for the 2007-2008 school year.
  I would like to submit for the Record several letters expressing 
support for this legislation. The first letter is from Governor Kaine. 
The second letter is from Dr. Billy Cannady, the Superintendent of 
Public Instruction in Virginia; the third letter is from Dr. Mark 
Emblidge, President of the Virginia Board of Education; and the fourth 
letter is from the Virginia School Boards Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Richmond, VA, March 20, 2007.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I would like to thank you for taking a 
     leadership role in efforts to resolve some of the immediate 
     difficulties states and local educational agencies are facing 
     in implementing testing provisions of the No Child Left 
     Behind Act (NCLB). I strongly support your proposed 
     legislation to provide a waiver from sanctions under certain 
     circumstances for the current academic year.
       As you know, Virginia takes the academic achievement of all 
     students and the accountability of all schools and school 
     divisions very seriously. Our accountability system predates 
     NCLB by several years, and is widely recognized as one of the 
     best in the nation. Our standards are ranked #5 in quality by 
     the Fordham Institute, which also lists us as #1 in 
     achievement based primarily on NAEP scores. We were recently 
     named by Education Week as the state with the highest 
     ``chance for success'' index for children. In achievement of 
     Hispanic students, Virginia ranks number 2, 3 and 4 
     nationally for percent of students proficient in 8th grade 
     mathematics, 8th grade science and 4th grade reading, 
     respectively.
       Meanwhile, we are challenged by the short time frame 
     afforded us to revise our assessment practices for the 
     current year, given the decision this same year by the U.S. 
     Department of Education to hold our academic assessment plan 
     invalid. The proposed legislation would allow us and other 
     states in similar situations a more reasonable amount of time 
     to revise assessment practices.
       I believe the role you propose for Governors to certify 
     that schools or local educational agencies meet the criteria 
     specified in the legislation is appropriate and practicable. 
     I applaud your thoughtful solution, and thank you for keeping 
     in mind the best interests of children, school divisions and 
     states as we continue to make progress in raising educational 
     achievement and closing achievement gaps.
           Sincerely,
     Timothy M. Kaine.
                                  ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                      Department of Education,

                                     Richmond, VA, March 21, 2007.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I strongly support your introduction 
     of legislation in the Senate of the United States on behalf 
     of the Commonwealth of Virginia and other states that will 
     provide a waiver from sanctions of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 as a result of having an 
     approved 2005-2006 state assessment plan held invalid by the 
     U.S. Department of Education for the 2006-2007 school year. 
     The Commonwealth of Virginia meets all of the qualifying 
     criteria in the proposed legislation, and certain eligible 
     schools and school divisions will benefit from the hold 
     harmless waiver provision.
       I sincerely appreciate the leadership you and other members 
     of Virginia's congressional delegation are providing in 
     seeking additional flexibility for states in implementing the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), otherwise 
     known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The Virginia Department 
     of Education remains committed to the goals of NCLB and 
     implementing the federal law with fidelity while advocating 
     for assessment policies based on research and sound practice.
       The Department will provide the Governor with valid and 
     reliable data for certifying that the commonwealth, schools, 
     and school divisions meet the qualifying criteria in the 
     proposed legislation.
       The Department of Education appreciates your continued 
     support. We are committed to moving all Virginia children 
     from competence to excellence. It is our hope that the 
     introduction of this legislation also will inform the 
     reauthorization process.
           Sincerely,
                                           Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.,
     Superintendent of Public Instruction.
                                  ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                           Board of Education,

                                     Richmond, VA, March 21, 2007.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to express strong support 
     for your introduction of legislation in the Senate of the 
     United States on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia and 
     other states seeking a waiver under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 from certain sanctions and 
     financial penalties as a result of having had an approved 
     state academic assessment plan for 2005-2006 held invalid by 
     the U.S. Department of Education for the 2006-2007 school 
     year. We understand the proposed legislation will apply only 
     to states, local educational agencies, and schools if the 
     state meets the qualifying criteria identified in the 
     proposed legislation. The Commonwealth of Virginia meets all 
     of the qualifying criteria and will benefit from the 
     additional flexibility being proposed.
       On behalf of the Virginia Board of Education, please accept 
     our gratitude for the leadership you are providing in 
     preventing sanctions to our state, schools, and school 
     divisions as a result of having to implement testing policies 
     that are not in the best interest of all the students we 
     serve. The legislation you are introducing in the Senate 
     reflects the growing impatience with the rigidity that has 
     characterized the U.S. Department of Education's 
     implementation of No Child Left Behind. This impatience is 
     most acute in states like Virginia with effective 
     accountability programs predating the federal law.
       The achievements of Virginia's students and schools under 
     the Standards of Learning program have brought the 
     commonwealth national recognition as a model of successful 
     reform. I am grateful to you and the other members of 
     Virginia's congressional delegation for their efforts to 
     secure additional flexibility so our public schools can 
     implement NCLB in a manner that puts children first and 
     reflects sound instructional and assessment practices.
       The Board of Education remains committed to the goals of 
     NCLB and holding schools accountable for closing achievement 
     gaps between minority and non-minority students while 
     improving teaching and learning for all children. This 
     commitment, which has made the commonwealth an acknowledged 
     leader in the implementation of standards-based reform, 
     includes accountability for student achievement and testing 
     policies based on research and sound practice.
       The Board of Education appreciates your continued support 
     of the Standards of Learning accountability program. It is my 
     hope that the introduction of this legislation also will 
     inform the reauthorization process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mark E. Emblidge,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   Virginia School


                                           Boards Association,

                              Charlottesville, VA, March 19, 2007.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Subject: Support for Emergency Waiver Bill under No Child 
         Left Behind.

       Dear Senator Warner: I write to express the support of the 
     Virginia School Boards Association on behalf of its members, 
     all 134 of Virginia's school boards for legislation

[[Page 7040]]

     you plan to introduce this week, to grant relief from certain 
     aspects of No Child Left Behind. That legislation, which will 
     be effective for this year's testing cycle, acknowledges that 
     schools, school divisions, and states need time to develop 
     certain alternative assessments, field test them, and train 
     teachers to administer them, before the U.S. Department of 
     Education imposes onerous sanctions. It would provide the 
     additional time needed to develop assessments that work for 
     children, not only in Virginia, but across the United States.
       On March 16, 2007, the Board of Directors of the Virginia 
     School Boards Association voted unanimously to support this 
     legislation. We stand ready to assist in any way in its 
     enactment into law in time for this year's testing cycle. 
     Finally, we thank you and your office for your steadfast 
     support of Virginia's 134 school boards, our teachers and 
     administrators and, most importantly, the 1.1 million 
     children we serve.
       If you have any questions, please contact Frank E. Barham, 
     VSBA Executive Director.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Eddie H. Ryder,
     President.
                                  ____


                                 S. 951

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

     SECTION 1. WAIVER.

       A State, local educational agency, or school shall be held 
     harmless and not subject to the penalties provision under 
     section 1111(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(g)), the requirements of school or 
     local educational agency improvement, corrective action, 
     restructuring, or other sanctions or penalties under section 
     1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6313), or any other sanctions or penalties 
     relating to academic assessments under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) for 
     the 2006-2007 school year if the following criteria are met:
       (1) The State (in the case of a local educational agency or 
     school, the State within which such local educational agency 
     or school exists) had 1 or more approved academic assessment 
     plans for the 2005-2006 school year.
       (2) The State (in the case of a local educational agency or 
     school, the State within which such local educational agency 
     or school exists) had 1 or more of such plans subsequently 
     held invalid by the Department of Education for the 2006-2007 
     school year.
       (3) The Governor of the State (in the case of a local 
     educational agency or school, the State within which such 
     local educational agency or school exists) certifies, in 
     writing, to the Secretary of Education that--
       (A) the State cannot effectively train its educators on a 
     new or alternative assessment or assessments in place of the 
     assessment or assessments for which the plan or plans were 
     held invalid by the Department of Education, prior to the 
     date the assessment or assessments are to be administered; 
     and
       (B) the administration of any new or alternative assessment 
     or assessments, in place of the assessment or assessments for 
     which the plan or plans were held invalid by the Department 
     of Education, in the 2006-2007 school year is not in the best 
     interest of the public school system and the children such 
     system serves.
       (4) The Governor of the State (in the case of a local 
     educational agency or school, the State within which such 
     local educational agency or school exists) certifies, in 
     writing, to the Secretary of Education that the local 
     educational agency or school failed to make adequate yearly 
     progress (as described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(2))) based on academic assessments administered in 
     the 2006-2007 school year or the State would be subject to 
     the penalties provision under section 1111(g) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(g)) or any other sanctions or penalties relating to 
     academic assessments under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) for the 2006-
     2007 school year solely because the State, local educational 
     agency, or school meets each of the criteria described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 952. A bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy 
Act of 1992 to provide funds for training in tribal leadership, 
management, and policy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that 
would authorize the Native Nations Institute, NNI, for Leadership, 
Management and Policy. Congressman Grijalva introduced similar 
legislation in the House of Representatives last week.
  In 2000, Congress reauthorized the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an 
independent Federal agency established in 1992, to expand its 
organization by providing tribal governments with leadership and 
management training services. In response, the Morris K. Udall 
Foundation founded the NNI to serve as a self-determination, self-
government and development resource to native nations. Over the past 5 
years, the NNI has operated in partnership with the University of 
Arizona and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development 
to provide practical leadership and management training as well as 
policy analysis in a variety of fields for native people. Approximately 
1,700 individuals representing 250 tribes have attended training 
sessions at the Institute to date.
  The Native Nations Institute performs an important role in upholding 
the Nation's trust obligations to Native Americans by encouraging 
tribes to move towards self-governance and engaging them in nation 
building. Although authorization for the NNI expired last year, popular 
demand for its executive education services now exceeds the 
organization's resources. The bill I am introducing today would 
authorize funding for the institute's programs for a period of 5 years 
beginning in fiscal year 2008.
  The Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy is 
an organization of great importance for Native Americans. I urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Vitter, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Tester, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Baucus, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 953. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure 
competition in the rail industry, enable rail customers to obtain 
reliable rail service, and provide those customers with a reasonable 
process for challenging rate and service disputes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with 
my colleagues Senators Craig, Dorgan, Vitter, Klobuchar, Tester, 
Landrieu, Crapo, Baucus, and Cantwell to introduce the Railroad 
Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation 
stands for the very basic premise that businesses should serve their 
customers, and do so at reasonable rates.
  This essential concept of capitalism is what our economy is based 
upon. Those ideas, plus promoting competition and protecting consumers, 
were prime motivating factors when Congress in 1980 passed the Staggers 
Act. The Staggers Act provided a government agency--now the Surface 
Transportation Board (STB)--with the ability to prevent monopoly abuses 
of those shippers left ``captive'' to just one railroad, and to make 
sure that the railroads in competitive situations were able to operate 
in such a way that they could be profitable. Somewhere along the way 
the part of the STB mandate calling on the agency to protect shippers, 
and by extension consumers, has been ignored, or at least subsumed into 
the STB's fervor to see the railroads profitable.
  And profitable they are. What is important for my colleagues to 
recognize is that neither I nor any of my cosponsors want the railroads 
to fail. We want, and this country needs, a healthy freight rail 
industry. From coal to chemicals to plastics to forest products to 
grain and potatoes, America's shippers depend on the railroad industry 
to carry their products to customers across the country to keep our 
economy moving.
  What no member of Congress should want to see is a freight rail 
system dominated by four regional carriers whose business plans are 
based on bleeding their captive customers dry. Meanwhile, these 
companies invest none of their profits in infrastructure expansion to 
handle current traffic, much less the expected need in the decades to 
come.
  This is by no means the first time my colleagues have seen me 
introduce legislation in this vein. In fact, this is at least the 
eighth time that I have asked my colleagues to look into the problems 
in our freight rail network and to

[[Page 7041]]

work with me to fix it. Businesses in my home State of West Virginia 
have been describing problems with the railroads to since before I came 
to the Senate in 1985. Like businesses anywhere, West Virginia 
industries depend on efficient and dependable rail service at fair 
prices to move their products to market.
  Well, what was a troubling situation 22 years ago for about 20 
percent of rail shippers captive to the more than 40 Class I railroads 
then is a nightmare now for hundreds of companies in almost every 
industry and in virtually every part of the United States that are 
being underserved and overcharged by the five remaining Class I 
railroads. I have worked for years in a bipartisan and regionally 
diverse coalition of members of Congress to change a system that just 
is not working. Our goal is to improve the economic situation for rail 
shippers and retail shoppers. And, I hasten to add, we seek to 
strengthen and improve the economic vitality of the Class I railroads, 
as well.
  I am sure that my colleagues will hear from railroads that we are 
``re-regulating.'' My colleagues should carefully review our bill and 
find where we would regulate anything that is not already regulated. 
This is, of course, the point. The railroads have touted the success of 
the deregulation, but what they fail to mention is that the Staggers 
Act never deregulated the railroads where shippers had no competitive 
transportation options. The railroads can have all the opinions about 
our legislation that they want, but they are not entitled to their own 
set of facts.
  What has happened while the railroads have consolidated and 
mischaracterized this effort on behalf of shippers? Shippers and end-
use consumers have paid increasingly high prices for electricity, food, 
medicine, paper products; the chemicals to protect our water supply and 
crops, and the basic ingredients of the plastics in many of the goods 
we purchase. It was not supposed to be this way.
  In 1980, when Congress passed the Staggers Act, it was seeking to 
rescue the railroads from a burdensome and counterproductive regulatory 
scheme overseen by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). In the 
decades leading up to passage of the Staggers Act the freight rail 
situation was bloated with unprofitable railroads forced to make un-
economic choices regarding track, routes, and countless other business 
decisions. The Staggers Act was an attempt to let the marketplace 
create a more workable system. Where rail shippers were already captive 
to one railroad, the ICC was supposed to continue to protect shippers' 
rights and to require railroads to meet their responsibilities.
  As the marketplace evolved, the ICC, and its successor agency the 
STB, were supposed to make sure that railroad consolidation and 
industry policy did not harm rail customers. The only reason the 
railroads in 2007 can say that my colleagues and I are attempting to 
``re-regulate'' them is that the regulatory agencies charged with 
regulating them all along largely have abdicated their 
responsibilities, and have been sadly ineffective on the rare occasion 
when they purport to be carrying out the part of their mission that 
includes maintaining the advantages of competition.
  To the extent that the Staggers Act has been successful in fulfilling 
its promise, that success has been completely one-sided. Railroads are 
no longer struggling to be profitable. Neither are they struggling to 
serve their customers. The STB, which should be working to make the 
system work, is more of a problem than it is a solution. The only 
parties still struggling are the shippers, and our bill is designed to 
make it a fair fight.
  The title of our bill, the Railroad Competition and Service 
Improvement Act, really says it all. Cosponsors of this legislation 
seek a freight rail system envisioned in the drafting of the Staggers 
Act. We hope to remind the STB of its responsibilities, and give its 
enforcement the teeth successive Chairmen have told Congress the Board 
needs.
  As I have said, this legislation is about making capitalism work for 
all parties in the freight rail marketplace, not just for the monopoly 
railroads. Shippers need Congress to remind the STB that good service 
at reasonable rates is not an outrageous demand. Congress must demand 
that shippers that ask for a rate quote are given one. Unbelievably, 
the STB's reading of the Staggers Act allows shippers no such right.
  In addition to that most basic right of business negotiations, our 
legislation would do the following: clarify and restate the STB's 
responsibility to shall promote competition among rail carriers, as 
well as requiring reasonable rates and dependable service in keeping 
with the railroads' common carrier obligation; remove so-called ``paper 
barriers,'' contractual restraints on short-line and regional railroads 
that prevent them from providing improved service to shippers; modify 
the rate challenge process, and implement real-world evidentiary 
standards and burden of proof requirements; authorize STB to require 
``reciprocal switching,'' the transfer of traffic between railroads, 
where it is in the public interest; affirm the railroads' obligation to 
serve; cap filing fees for STB rate cases at the level of federal 
district courts; allow Governors to petition the STB for declarations 
of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' with appropriate remedies; 
create position of Rail Customer Advocate in the Department of 
Transportation; and establish a system of ``final offer'' arbitration 
for disputes over agriculture, forest product, and fertilizer 
shipments.
  Solutions to these problems are long overdue. I commend to my 
colleagues the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act as a 
set of common-sense solutions to unresolved problems that are putting 
American competitiveness at risk.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce very 
important bipartisan legislation S. 953, the Railroad Competition and 
Service Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will improve America's 
railroad system by ensuring increased rail competition and enabling 
rail customers to obtain more reliable service. Today, I introduce S. 
953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007 along 
with my colleagues Senators Rockefeller, Craig, Dorgan, Klobuchar, 
Tester, Landrieu, Crapo, Baucus and Cantwell.
  The lack of healthy competition in our national rail system is 
stifling rail customers from our petrochemical manufacturers to utility 
providers to agriculture and forest product providers. The extreme 
prices these rail customers are charged and the service challenges they 
face have a direct impact on jobs and prices for consumers. We must 
reform our railroad system to foster more competition and provide 
relief to consumers.
  The Surface Transportation Board, which is supposed to oversee rail 
pricing and practices, has not proactively addressed rail problems, and 
government accountability reports have noted a lack of competition in 
the railroad industry. The Railroad Competition and Service Improvement 
Act will direct STB to do its job and foster a free marketplace for our 
rail system by addressing the inadequacies in the rate reasonableness 
process of the STB and directing the STB to actively investigate and 
suspend unreasonable practices.
  I would like to share with you a bottlenecking example of how the 
lack of railroad competition impacts rail customers in Louisiana. The 
city of Lafayette's electricity customers have faced $6 million or more 
annually in rate increases because of the lack of railroad competition. 
The Rodemacher Plant that provides electricity to the Lafayette 
Utilities System gets its coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. 
This coal is transported by rail for more than 1,500 miles. Currently, 
two railroads travel from the Basin to Alexandria, LA. However, the 
last 19 miles of travel distance to the Rodemacher Plant only has one 
major railroad provider. Present law allows the current rail provider's 
control of the last 19 miles to push its pricing monopoly all the way 
back to the Powder

[[Page 7042]]

River Basin, which in essence, turns a 19 mile monopoly into a 1,500-
mile monopoly.
  This monopoly forces the Lafayette ratepayers to pay much higher 
rates than if the Rodemacher Plant had access to both railroads that 
serve the Powder River Basin. When enacted, the Railroad Competition 
and Service Improvement Act would address bottlenecking issues like 
this and the lack of competition saving the Lafayette ratepayers money.
  I look forward to the consideration of S. 953, the Railroad 
Competition and Service Improvement Act by the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation, on which I serve, and the full 
Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 954. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a technical correction to the amendments made by section 
422 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
Act of 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Feingold, I am 
introducing the Medicare Residency Program Technical Correction Act of 
2007. This legislation will fix an unintended consequence of Section 
422 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that has resulted in a 
decrease of family medical residents slots in Wisconsin's Fox Valley 
and potentially other family medicine practices across the Nation. Our 
bill would provide for an adjustment to the reduction of Medicare 
resident positions based on settled cost reports.
  For the last 2 years, I've been working with the University of 
Wisconsin School of Medicine and the Fox Valley Family Medicine 
Residency Program to urge CMS to restore funding for its residency 
training positions that was taken away as a result of an audit that 
incorrectly determined that the positions weren't used. Now, a Final 
Mediation Agreement between Appleton Medical Center and United 
Government Services demonstrates that the positions were being used and 
that the program met the Medicare requirement for those positions. I 
believe it is only fair that Appleton Medical Center's residency 
positions be reinstated.
  The Fox Valley Family Practice Residency Program is an important 
contributing member to the Fox Valley and surrounding community, 
providing health care services to some 10,000 families. This is exactly 
the type of program that we should be supporting, not reducing. My 
legislation will right this wrong and provide for the same opportunity 
for any other family medicine program that can demonstrate that its 
residency slots were erroneously de-funded by CMS. I ask that my Senate 
colleagues join me by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 954

       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 ``Medicare Residency Program 
     Technical Correction Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT RESIDENT SLOTS 
                   THAT WERE ERRONEOUSLY ELIMINATED.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(h)(7) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Adjustment based on settled cost report.--In the case 
     of a hospital for which--
       ``(i) the otherwise applicable resident limit was reduced 
     under subparagraph (A)(i)(I); and
       ``(ii) such reduction was based on a reference resident 
     level that was determined using a cost report that was 
     subsequently settled, whether as a result of an appeal or 
     otherwise, and the reference resident level under such 
     settled cost report is higher than the level used for the 
     reduction under subparagraph (A)(i)(I),

     the Secretary shall apply subparagraph (A)(i)(I) using the 
     higher resident reference level and make any necessary 
     adjustments to such reduction. Any such necessary adjustments 
     shall be effective for portions of cost reporting periods 
     occurring on or after July 1, 2005.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     422 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 955. A bill to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage 
Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 955

       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 ``Abraham Lincoln National 
     Heritage Area Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area is a 
     cohesive assemblage of natural, historic, cultural, and 
     recreational resources that--
       (A) together represent distinctive aspects of the heritage 
     of the United States worthy of recognition, conservation, 
     interpretation, and continuing use; and
       (B) are best managed through partnerships between private 
     and public entities;
       (2) the Heritage Area reflects traditions, customs, 
     beliefs, folklife, or a combination of those attributes that 
     are a valuable part of the heritage of the United States;
       (3) the Heritage Area provides outstanding opportunities to 
     conserve natural features, historic feature, cultural 
     features, or a combination of those features;
       (4) the Heritage Area provides outstanding recreational and 
     interpretive opportunities.
       (5) the Heritage Area has an identifiable theme, and 
     resources important to the theme, that retain integrity 
     capable of supporting interpretation;
       (6) residents, nonprofit organizations, other private 
     entities, and units of local government throughout the 
     Heritage Area demonstrate support for--
       (A) designation of the Heritage Area as a national heritage 
     area; and
       (B) management of the Heritage Area in a manner appropriate 
     for the designation;
       (7) there is a compelling need to educate and cultivate 
     among the citizens of the United States, particularly youth, 
     an understanding appreciation for, and a renewed commitment 
     to integrity, courage, self-initiative, and principled 
     leadership in public and private life;
       (8) few individuals in the history of the United States 
     have as broadly exemplified such qualities, and so profoundly 
     influenced the history and character of the United States, as 
     Abraham Lincoln;
       (9) the story and example of the life of Abraham Lincoln, 
     including his inspiring rise from humble origins to the 
     highest office in the land and his decisive leadership 
     through the most harrowing and dangerous time in the history 
     of the United States, continues to bring hope and inspiration 
     to millions in the United States and around the world;
       (10) the great issues during the lifetime of Abraham 
     Lincoln, including national unity, equality and race 
     relations, the capacity for democratic government, and the 
     ideals to address those and related issues, continue to this 
     day to define the challenges facing the United States;
       (11) the ideals espoused by Lincoln, and the sentiments 
     expressed by Lincoln with respect to keeping the United 
     States together, are as relevant today as the ideals and 
     sentiment were in Lincoln's troubled time;
       (12) Illinois is known throughout the world as the land of 
     Abraham Lincoln;
       (13) unquestionably, the physical, social, and cultural 
     landscape of Illinois helped mold the character of Lincoln;
       (14) ``Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have 
     passed from a young to an old man,'' Lincoln remarked on 
     leaving Illinois. ``To this place and the kindness of these 
     people I owe everything'';
       (15) Lincoln, in turn, left his own traces across the 
     Illinois landscape;
       (16) the traces remain today in the form of stories, 
     folklore, artifacts, buildings, streetscapes, and landscapes;
       (17) though scattered geographically and in varying states 
     of development and interpretation, together the traces of 
     Lincoln bring an immediacy and tangible quality to the 
     powerful Lincoln legacy;
       (18) individually and collectively, the traces of Lincoln 
     in Illinois constitute an important national cultural and 
     historic resource;
       (19) in particular, the stories and cultural resources of 
     the Lincoln legacy of the region--

[[Page 7043]]

       (A) reflect the values and attitudes, obstacles and 
     ingenuity, failures and accomplishments, human frailties, and 
     strength of character of the men and women who made up the 
     diverse people of Lincoln's generation, including upland 
     Southerners and Northeastern Yankees, Anglo-settlers and 
     American Indians, ``free'' blacks, abolitionists, and critics 
     of abolitionists;
       (B) reflect the material culture and relative levels of 
     technical sophistication in the United States in the lifetime 
     of Lincoln;
       (C) recreate the physical environment during the lifetime 
     of Lincoln, revealing the impact of the environment on 
     agriculture, transportation, trade, business, and social and 
     cultural patterns in urban and rural settings; and
       (D) interpret the effect of the democratic ethos of the era 
     on the development of the legal and political institutions 
     and distinctive political culture of the United States;
       (20) 3 previous studies entitled ``Abraham Lincoln Research 
     and Interpretive Center Suitability/Feasibility Study'' by 
     the National Park Service (1991), ``Looking for Lincoln 
     Illinois Heritage Tourism Project'' commissioned by the State 
     of Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs in 
     cooperation with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 
     (1998), and the ``Feasibility Study for the Proposed Abraham 
     Lincoln National Heritage Area'', revised in 2003, help 
     document a sufficient assemblage of nationally distinctive 
     historic resources to demonstrate the feasibility of, and 
     need to establish, the Heritage Area;
       (21) the National Park Service--
       (A) operates and maintains the Lincoln Home National 
     Historic Site in Springfield, Illinois; and
       (B) is responsible for--
       (i) advocating the protection and interpretation of the 
     cultural and historic resources of the United States; and
       (ii) encouraging the development of interpretive context 
     for those resources through appropriate planning and 
     preservation;
       (22) the Heritage Area can strengthen, complement, and 
     support the Lincoln Home National Historic Site through the 
     interpretation and conservation of the associated living 
     landscapes outside of the boundaries of the historic site;
       (23) there is a Federal interest in supporting the 
     development of a regional framework and context to partner 
     with and assist the National Park Service, the State of 
     Illinois, local organizations, units of local government, and 
     private citizens to conserve, protect, and bring recognition 
     to the resources of the Heritage Area for the educational and 
     recreational benefit of the present generation and future 
     generations;
       (24) communities throughout the region--
       (A) know the value of their Lincoln legacy; but
       (B) need to expand upon an existing cooperative framework 
     and technical assistance to achieve important goals by 
     working together;
       (25) the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 
     and Bureau of Tourism of the State of Illinois--
       (A) officially designated ``Looking for Lincoln'' as a 
     State Heritage Tourism Area; and
       (B) has identified the story of Lincoln as a key 
     destination driver for the State;
       (26) the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, the 
     management entity for the Heritage Area--
       (A) is a nonprofit corporation created for the purposes of 
     preserving, interpreting, developing, promoting, and making 
     available to the public the story and resources relating to--
       (i) the story of the adult life of Abraham Lincoln in 
     Illinois; and
       (ii) the contributions of Abraham Lincoln to society; and
       (B) would be an appropriate entity to oversee the 
     development of the Heritage Area; and
       (27) the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition has 
     completed a business plan that--
       (A) describes in detail the role, operation, financing, and 
     functions of the Looking For Lincoln Heritage Coalition as 
     the management entity for the Heritage Area; and
       (B) provides adequate assurances that the Looking For 
     Lincoln Heritage Coalition is likely to have the financial 
     resources necessary to implement the management plan for the 
     Heritage Area, including resources to meet matching 
     requirement for grants.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Coalition.--The term ``Coalition'' means the Looking 
     for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, an entity recognized by the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the chief executive officer 
     of the State, that has agreed to perform the duties of the 
     management entity under this Act.
       (2) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area established by section 
     4(a).
       (3) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated 
     by section 5(a).
       (4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the plan developed by the management entity under section 
     6(a).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Illinois.
       (7) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means the government of the State, a political 
     subdivision of the State, or an Indian tribe.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN NATIONAL HERITAGE 
                   AREA.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the State the 
     Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall include--
       (1) a core area located in central Illinois, consisting of 
     Adams, Brown, Calhoun, Cass, Champaign, Christian, Clark, 
     Coles, Cumberland, Dewitt, Douglas, Edgar, Fayette, Fulton, 
     Greene, Hancock, Henderson, Jersey, Knox, LaSalle, Logan, 
     Macon, Macoupin, Madison, Mason, McDonough, McLean, Menard, 
     Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Piatt, Pike, Sangamon, 
     Schuyler, Scott, Shelby, Tazwell, Vermillion, Warren, and 
     Woodford counties;
       (2) any sites, buildings, and districts within the core 
     area that are recommended for inclusion in the management 
     plan; and
       (3) each of the following sites:
       (A) Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
       (B) Lincoln Tomb State Historic Site.
       (C) Lincoln's New Salem State Historic Site.
       (D) Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum.
       (E) Thomas and Sara Bush Lincoln Log Cabin and Living 
     History Farm State Historic Site.
       (F) Mt. Pulaski, Postville State Historic Sites and 
     Metamora Courthouse.
       (G) Lincoln-Herndon Law Offices State Historic Site.
       (H) David Davis Mansion State Historic Site.
       (I) Vandalia Statehouse State Historic Site.
       (J) Lincoln Douglas Debate Museum.
       (K) Macon County Log Court House.
       (L) Richard J. Oglesby Mansion.
       (M) Lincoln Trail Homestead State Memorial.
       (N) Governor John Wood Mansion.
       (O) Beardstown Courthouse.
       (P) Old Main at Knox College.
       (Q) Carl Sandburg Home State Historic Site.
       (R) Bryant Cottage State Historic Site.
       (S) Dr. William Fithian Home.
       (T) Vermillion County Museum.
       (c) Map.--A map of the Heritage Area shall be--
       (1) included in the management plan; and
       (2) on file in the appropriate offices of the National Park 
     Service.

     SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF COALITION AS MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Management Entity.--The Coalition shall be the 
     management entity for the Heritage Area.
       (b) Authorities of Management Entity.--The management 
     entity may, for purposes of preparing and implementing the 
     management plan, use Federal funds made available under this 
     Act--
       (1) to prepare reports, studies, interpretive exhibits and 
     programs, historic preservation projects, and other 
     activities recommended in the management plan for the 
     Heritage Area;
       (2) to pay for operational expenses of the management 
     entity incurred during the first 10 fiscal years beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (3) to make grants or loans to the State, units of local 
     government, nonprofit organizations, and other persons;
       (4) to enter into cooperative agreements with the State, 
     units of local government, nonprofit organizations, and other 
     organizations;
       (5) to hire and compensate staff;
       (6) to obtain funds from any source under any program or 
     law requiring the recipient of funds to make a contribution 
     in order to receive the funds; and
       (7) to contract for goods and services.
       (c) Duties of Management Entity.--For any fiscal year for 
     which Federal funds are received under this Act, the 
     management entity shall--
       (1) submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
       (A) the accomplishments of the management entity;
       (B) the expenses and income of the management entity; and
       (C) the entities to which the management entity made any 
     grants;
       (2) make available for audit by Congress, the Secretary, 
     and appropriate units of local government, all records 
     relating to the expenditure of the Federal funds and any 
     matching funds; and
       (3) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing the 
     expenditure of Federal funds by any entity, that the 
     receiving entity make available for audit all records 
     relating to the expenditure of the Federal funds.
       (d) Prohibition on Acquisition of Real Property.--
       (1) In general.--The management entity shall not use 
     Federal funds received under this Act to acquire real 
     property or any interest in real property.
       (2) Other sources.--Nothing in this Act precludes the 
     management entity from using Federal funds from other sources 
     for authorized purposes, including the acquisition of

[[Page 7044]]

     real property or any interest in real property.

     SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are first made available to carry out this Act, 
     the management entity shall prepare and submit for review to 
     the Secretary a management plan for the Heritage Area.
       (b) Requirements for Preparation and Implementation.--The 
     management entity shall--
       (1) collaborate with and consider the interests of diverse 
     units of local government, businesses, tourism officials, 
     private property owners, and nonprofit groups within the 
     Heritage Area in preparing and implementing the management 
     plan;
       (2) ensure regular public involvement regarding the 
     implementation of the management plan for the Heritage Area; 
     and
       (3) submit the proposed management plan to participating 
     units of local governments within the Heritage Area for 
     review.
       (c) Contents.--The management plan for the Heritage Area 
     shall--
       (1) present a comprehensive program for the conservation, 
     interpretation, funding, management, and development of the 
     Heritage Area (including the natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources and the recreational and educational opportunities 
     of the Heritage Area) in a manner consistent with--
       (A) existing Federal, State, and local land use laws; and
       (B) the compatible economic viability of the Heritage Area;
       (2) involve residents, public agencies, and private 
     organizations in the Heritage Area;
       (3) specify and coordinate, as of the date of the 
     management plan, existing and potential sources of technical 
     and financial assistance under this Act and other Federal 
     laws for the protection, management, and development of the 
     Heritage Area; and
       (4) include--
       (A) actions to be undertaken by units of local government 
     and private organizations to protect, conserve, and interpret 
     the resources of the Heritage Area;
       (B) an inventory of resources in the Heritage Area that 
     includes a list of property in the Heritage Area that--
       (i) is related to the themes of the Heritage Area; and
       (ii) merits preservation, restoration, management, 
     development, or maintenance because of the natural, historic, 
     cultural, or recreational significance of the property;
       (C) a recommendation of policies for resource management 
     that consider the application of appropriate land and water 
     management techniques, including policies for the development 
     of intergovernmental cooperative agreements, private sector 
     agreements, or any combination of agreements, to protect the 
     natural, historic, cultural, and recreational resources of 
     the Heritage Area in a manner that is consistent with the 
     support of appropriate and compatible economic viability;
       (D) a program for implementation of the management plan by 
     the management entity, in cooperation with partners of the 
     management entity and units of local government;
       (E) evidence that relevant State, county, and local plans 
     applicable to the Heritage Area have been taken into 
     consideration;
       (F) an analysis of means by which Federal, State, and local 
     programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of 
     this Act; and
       (G) a business plan for the Heritage Area that--
       (i) describes in detail--

       (I) the role, operation, financing, and functions of the 
     management entity; and
       (II) each activity included in the recommendations in the 
     management plan; and

       (ii) provides, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, 
     adequate assurances that the management entity is likely to 
     have the financial resources necessary to implement the 
     management plan, including the resources necessary to meet 
     matching requirement for grants awarded under this Act.
       (d) Consideration of Interests of Local Groups.--In 
     preparing and implementing the management plan, the 
     management entity shall consider the interests of diverse 
     units of local government, businesses, private property 
     owners, and nonprofit groups in the Heritage Area.
       (e) Public Meetings.--
       (1) In general.--The management entity shall conduct public 
     meetings at least quarterly regarding the development and 
     implementation of the management plan.
       (2) Public notice.--The management entity shall--
       (A) place a notice of each public meeting in a newspaper of 
     general circulation in the Heritage Area; and
       (B) make the minutes of each public meeting available to 
     the public.
       (f) Disqualification From Funding.--If a proposed 
     management plan is not submitted to the Secretary by the date 
     that is 3 years after the date on which funds are first made 
     available to carry out this Act, the management entity may 
     not receive additional funding under this Act until the date 
     on which the Secretary receives the proposed management plan.
       (g) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the management entity submits the management plan to 
     the Secretary, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Governor of the State or a designee of the Governor, shall 
     approve or disapprove the proposed management plan.
       (2) Disapproval and revisions.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a proposed 
     management plan, the Secretary shall--
       (i) advise the management entity, in writing, of the 
     reasons for the disapproval; and
       (ii) make recommendations for revision of the proposed 
     management plan.
       (B) Approval or disapproval.--The Secretary shall approve 
     or disapprove a revised management plan not later than 90 
     days after the date on which the revised management plan is 
     submitted.
       (3) Approval of amendments.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall review and approve or 
     disapprove substantial amendments to the management plan.
       (B) Funding.--Funds appropriated under this Act may not be 
     expended to implement any changes made by an amendment to the 
     management plan until the Secretary approves the amendment.
       (h) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority 
     to the implementation of actions, goals, and strategies set 
     forth in the management plan, including assisting units of 
     local government and other persons in--
       (1) carrying out programs that recognize and protect 
     important resource values in the Heritage Area;
       (2) encouraging economic viability in the Heritage Area in 
     accordance with the goals of the management plan;
       (3) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in 
     the Heritage Area;
       (4) developing heritage-based recreational and educational 
     opportunities for residents and visitors in the Heritage 
     Area;
       (5) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the 
     natural, historic, and cultural resources of the Heritage 
     Area;
       (6) restoring historic buildings that are--
       (A) located in the Heritage Area; and
       (B) related to the themes of the Heritage Area; and
       (7) installing throughout the Heritage Area clear, 
     consistent, and appropriate signs to identify public access 
     points and sites of interest.

     SEC. 7. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; OTHER FEDERAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--On request of the management entity, the 
     Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance for 
     the development and implementation of the management plan.
       (2) Priority for assistance.--In providing assistance under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to actions 
     that assist in--
       (A) conserving the significant natural, historic, and 
     cultural resources of the Heritage Area; and
       (B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational 
     opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage 
     Area.
       (3) Spending for non-federal property.--The management 
     entity may expend Federal funds made available under this Act 
     on non-Federal property that is--
       (A) identified in the management plan; or
       (B) listed, or eligible for listing, on the National 
     Register of Historic Places.
       (4) Other assistance.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with public and private organizations 
     to carry out this subsection.
       (b) Other Federal Agencies.--Any Federal entity conducting 
     or supporting an activity that directly affects the Heritage 
     Area shall--
       (1) consider the potential effects of the activity on--
       (A) the purposes of the Heritage Area; and
       (B) the management plan;
       (2) consult with the management entity with respect to the 
     activity; and
       (3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support 
     the activity to avoid adverse effects on the Heritage Area.
       (c) Other Assistance Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act 
     affects the authority of any Federal official to provide 
     technical or financial assistance under any other law.
       (d) Notification of Other Federal Activities.--The head of 
     each Federal agency shall provide to the Secretary and the 
     management entity for the Heritage Area, to the extent 
     practicable, advance notice of all activities that may have 
     an impact on the Heritage Area.

     SEC. 8. PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) requires any private property owner to allow public 
     access (including access by the Federal Government, State 
     government, or units of local government) to the private 
     property; or
       (2) modifies any provision of Federal, State, or local law 
     with respect to public access to, or use of, private 
     property.
       (b) Liability.--Designation of the Heritage Area shall not 
     be considered to create any liability, or have any effect on 
     any liability under any other law, of any private property 
     owner with respect to any persons injured on the private 
     property.
       (c) Recognition of Authority to Control Land Use.--Nothing 
     in this Act modifies any

[[Page 7045]]

     authority of the Federal Government, State government, or 
     units of local governments to regulate land use.
       (d) Participation of Private Property Owners in Heritage 
     Area.--Nothing in this Act requires the owner of any private 
     property located within the boundaries of the Heritage Area 
     to participate in, or be associated with, the Heritage Area.
       (e) Land Use Regulation.--
       (1) In general.--The management entity shall provide 
     assistance and encouragement to State and local governments, 
     private organizations, and persons to protect and promote the 
     resources and values of the Heritage Area.
       (2) Effect.--Nothing in this Act grants any power of zoning 
     or land use to the management entity.
       (f) Private Property.--
       (1) In general.--The management entity shall be an advocate 
     for land management practices that are consistent with the 
     purposes of the Heritage Area.
       (2) Effect.--Nothing in this Act--
       (A) abridges the rights of any person with respect to 
     private property;
       (B) affects the authority of the State or unit of local 
     government relating to private property; or
       (C) imposes any additional burden on any property owner.

     SEC. 9. EFFECT.

       (a) Rules, Regulations, Standards, and Permit Processes.--
     Nothing in this Act imposes any environmental, occupational, 
     safety, or other rule, regulation, standard, or permit 
     process in the Heritage Area that is different from the rule, 
     regulation, standard, or process that would be applicable if 
     the Heritage Area had not been established.
       (b) Water and Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act authorizes 
     or implies the reservation or appropriation of water or water 
     rights.
       (c) No Diminishment of State Authority.--Nothing in this 
     Act diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish and 
     wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting 
     within the Heritage Area.
       (d) Existing National Heritage Areas.--Nothing in this Act 
     affects any national heritage area designated before the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than 
     $1,000,000 may be authorized to be appropriated for any 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the 
     total cost of any activity carried out using funds made 
     available under this Act shall be not more than 50 percent.

     SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under 
     this Act terminates on the date that is 15 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 956. A bill to establish the Land Between the Rivers National 
Heritage Area in the State of Illinois, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 956

       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 ``Land Between the Rivers 
     Southern Illinois National Heritage Area Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) southern Illinois has a cohesive, distinctive, and 
     important landscape that distinguishes the area as worthy of 
     designation as a National Heritage Area;
       (2) the historic features of southern Illinois reflect a 
     period during which the area was the strategic convergence 
     point during the westward expansion of the United States;
       (3) the geographic centrality of southern Illinois ensured 
     that the area played a pivotal military, social, and 
     political role during the Civil War, which resulted in the 
     area being known as the ``Confluence of Freedom'';
       (4) southern Illinois is at the junction of the ending 
     glaciers and 6 ecological divisions;
       (5) after the expeditions of Lewis and Clark, the land 
     between the rivers became known as ``Egypt'' because of the 
     rivers in, and the beauty and agricultural abundance of, the 
     area;
       (6) Native Americans described the area in southern 
     Illinois between the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers as the 
     ``Land Between the Rivers'';
       (7) a feasibility study led by the Office of Economic and 
     Regional Development at Southern Illinois University 
     Carbondale that was revised in April 2006 documents a 
     sufficient assemblage of nationally distinctive historic 
     resources to demonstrate the feasibility of, and the need 
     for, establishing the Land Between the Rivers National 
     Heritage Area; and
       (8) stakeholders participating in the feasibility study 
     process for the Heritage Area have developed a proposed 
     management entity and financial plan to preserve the natural, 
     cultural, historic, and scenic features of the area while 
     furthering recreational and educational opportunities in the 
     area.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Land Between the Rivers National Heritage Area established by 
     section 4(a).
       (2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated 
     by section 4(c).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Illinois.

     SEC. 4. LAND BETWEEN THE RIVERS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the 
     Land Between the Rivers National Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall include--
       (1) Kincaid Mound, Fort de Chartres, Kaskaskia, Fort 
     Massac, Wilkinsonville Contonment, the Lewis and Clark 
     Sculpture, Flat Boat, Cave-in-Rock, the Shawneetown Bank 
     Building, the Iron Furnace, the Crenshaw ``Slave House,'' 
     Roots House, the site of the Lincoln-Douglas debate, certain 
     sites associated with John A. Logan, the Fort Defiance 
     Planning Map, Mound City National Cemetary, and Riverlore 
     Mansion; and
       (2) any other sites in Randolph, Perry, Jefferson, 
     Franklin, Hamilton, White, Jackson, Williamson, Saline, 
     Gallatin, Union, Johnson, Pope, Hardin, Alexander, Pulaski, 
     and Massac Counties in the State that the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the management entity, determines to be 
     appropriate for inclusion in the Heritage Area.
       (c) Management Entity.--The management entity for the 
     Heritage Area shall be the Southern Illinois University 
     Carbondale.

                          ____________________