[Pages S7733-S7753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry,
Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Salazar):
S. 1617. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives for plug-in electric drive motor vehicles; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fuel Reduction
using Electrons to End Our Dependence on the Mideast Act of 2007, or
the FREEDOM Act. Senators Maria Cantwell, Barack Obama, and I have been
working closely together since the beginning of the year to author this
very important legislation. We believe the FREEDOM Act will begin a
dramatic shift in the transportation sector away from liquid fuels and
toward the greater use of electrons.
For years I worked hard to pass a strong tax incentive package for
alternative fuel and hybrid electric vehicles in the form of the CLEAR
Act, which was passed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. When I first introduced the CLEAR Act, more than 7 years ago,
there were only two hybrid vehicles available commercially. Today there
are dozens of models of hybrids from which consumers can choose.
Already, the move toward hybrid-electric vehicles has helped to
reduce the demand for liquid fuel in this country. It has also set the
stage for the next technological step, the plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle. This vehicle would have an extra battery pack, recharged from
the electricity grid, giving the vehicle all the benefits of a plug-in
battery electric vehicle but also the freedom and fuel efficiency of a
hybrid electric vehicle once the battery has used up its charge.
With today's advanced plug-in electric and the coming plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, most commuters will be able to make the round trip
from home to work and back using very little or no fuel, relying
instead on cheap, clean, and abundant electricity.
As you and many of our colleagues know, per mile, electricity can be
much cheaper and cleaner than petroleum, and electrons are generated
domestically and independent of the global oil market.
It is difficult to overstate the potential the change to plug-in
electric vehicles could make in terms of our energy dependence on
liquid fuels. R. James Woolsey, who is a member of the National
Commission on Energy Policy, testified before the Finance Committee
this spring. In his testimony, he cited a Department of Energy study
that estimated that adopting plug-in vehicles would not create a need
for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins
constitute over 84 percent of the country's 220 million passenger
vehicles. In other words, we already have the power we need to fuel the
vast majority of the cars in this country right now, and it exists in
the excess capacity of our existing powerplants. Because plug-in
vehicles could mostly be charged at night, during the off-peak hours
for electric utilities, this technology represents an elegant solution.
In terms of technology and industry focus, the United States is
positioned to lead the world into the future with plug-in electric
drive motor vehicles. The FREEDOM Act would help our Nation to take up
that position by helping to develop the market, the technology, and the
domestic production capacity needed to fulfill this role.
The FREEDOM Act's goals would be achieved through four strong tax
incentives: First, a tax credit for consumers who purchase plug-in
electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; second, for a limited
time, a tax credit for consumers who convert their hybrid vehicles to
high quality plug-in hybrid vehicles; third, a strong tax incentive for
the U.S. manufacture of plug-in vehicles and of major components of
plug-in vehicles, such as batteries, electric motors, and electronic
controllers; and finally, a tax credit for electric utilities that
provide rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive
vehicles.
Freedom plug-in credits would cover the consumer purchase of vehicles
that use batteries and that plug into the electric grid for at least
part of their power. This would include plug-in electrics, plug-in
hybrids, and others. The amount of the credit would be based on the
kilowatt hours of the vehicle's battery pack, with a cap of $7,500 for
passenger vehicles. The same is true for heavier duty vehicles, except
that the caps are scaled up for each vehicle weight class.
Freedom conversion credits would go to hybrid-electric vehicle owners
who choose to convert their existing hybrid vehicle to a high quality
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. These credits would also be scaled to
the kilowatt-hours of the new battery installed in their vehicle. Only
high quality conversion kits, which are certified to meet all highway
safety and emissions standards would qualify for a freedom conversion
credit, and the credits would be available until the market transitions
to commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles.
The FREEDOM Act also offers first-year expensing for companies
setting up production capacity in the United States for plug-in
electric drive vehicles and for major components of those vehicles.
Finally, in the case that an electric utility in the U.S. chooses to
offer rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive
vehicles, the FREEDOM Act would reimburse the utility for part of that
rebate in the form of a freedom utility credit. The amount of the
Government reimbursement would be based on the rate of greenhouse gas
emissions for each utility.
I want to emphasize that like the tax credits available under current
law for hybrid electric vehicles, the tax incentives in the FREEDOM Act
are temporary. They are needed in order to help get these products over
the initial stage of production, when they are quite a bit more
expensive than older technology vehicles, to the mass production stage,
where economies of scale will drive costs down and the credits will no
longer be necessary. Consumer acceptance of this exciting new
technology is vital, and these credits will make it easier and more
economical for consumers to choose vehicles that will move us away from
dependence on less clean and more expensive transportation fuel
produced by other nations.
The consumer acceptance of the hybrid electric vehicle has already
proven a benefit to our Nation's energy security, and the plug-in
hybrid will lead to an even more dramatic reduction in fuel use in this
country. Years ago, I argued that the technologies developed to make
hybrids possible would eventually lead us to a commercially available
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I stand by that argument, and I believe
that by the time plug-in hybrid electric vehicles become mass produced
in this country, we will be ready to use hydrogen fuel cells to
disconnect these vehicles from the grid and begin a new age in
transportation with much greater freedom of movement and freedom from
dependence of foreign oil.

[[Page S7734]]

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to throw their full support for
the FREEDOM Act.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 1619. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit for fuel-efficient motor vehicles, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Bennett and I are
reintroducing legislation to provide a significant financial incentive
for automakers to produce, and for their customers to buy, more fuel
efficient cars and light trucks in the form of consumer tax credits.
Reducing our Nation's dependence on oil should not be a partisan issue
and Senator Bennett and I have worked together to come up with a plan
that will encourage consumers to buy more energy efficient vehicles
even if those vehicles employ technologies, such as electric hybrid
drive trains or clean diesels, that cost more to produce.
Under our bipartisan, market-oriented bill, consumers who buy
vehicles that are at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than the
current corporate fuel economy standards, called CAFE, would get a
rebate of at least $630 and as much as $1,860 for the most fuel-
efficient cars. We have separate standards for cars and trucks so
consumers can choose the type of vehicle they want and still get the
credit as long as they choose a fuel-efficient model. Similarly, our
bill is technology neutral. We don't provide a credit based on the kind
of engine or drive train that a car or truck has. We provide a credit
based on the level of fuel economy the vehicle achieves. So,
manufacturers are free to pursue whichever efficiency technology they
want and consumers have a greater choice of vehicles to purchase.
In the past, the automobile industry has said that increasing fuel
economy standards is hard to achieve because car buyers place little
value on fuel economy, especially if that fuel efficiency comes with
added cost. They also argue that initial purchaser of a new car or
truck will not keep that car or truck long enough to recognize the
life-cycle fuel savings of a more efficient vehicle. The new program
created by our bill directly addresses these concerns by providing tax
credits to consumers for purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles.
Providing these credits to purchasers of fuel efficient vehicles will
focus consumer attention on fuel efficiency at the time of purchase.
For vehicles that qualify, the rebate amount would be printed on the
window sticker on new vehicles, so consumers would know exactly how
much they would receive at the time they buy a new vehicle.

The consumer would claim that rebate as a tax credit on his or her
tax return. Alternatively, the rebate could be transferred to auto
dealers, allowing dealers to provide the rebates to consumers as ``cash
back'' at the time of purchase.
This legislation builds on the incentives that were provided in the
2005 energy bill specifically for hybrid gasoline/electric, lean-burn
and fuel-cell powered cars. We believe the approach that we are
advocating will be simpler and fairer. Unlike the 2005 credits, we
don't pick specific technologies. Unlike the 2005 credits, we don't
limit the amount of the credits to a specific number of vehicles or
manufacturer. This approach does not pick winners and losers among
competitive technology or companies. It takes a technology-neutral
approach that allows any vehicle that has superior fuel efficiency to
qualify for a tax credit, whether it uses hybrid or any other
technology.
Finally, legislation already passed by the Senate Commerce Committee
calls for the U.S. Department of Transportation to begin to increase
the fuel efficiency standards of cars beginning in model year 2011. Our
tax credit program, which will cover model years 2009, 2010 and 2011,
will help bridge the gap between where we are now and implementation of
the new fuel economy standards by encouraging consumers to buy those
more fuel efficient vehicles earlier while helping manufacturers gear
up to produce them.
I urge colleagues to help jumpstart our Nation on the road to oil
independence and chart a new direction for our Nation's energy policy
by supporting the OILSAVE Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1619

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 ``Oil Independence, Limiting
Subsidies, and Accelerating Vehicle Efficiency (OILSAVE)
Act''.

SEC. 2. TAX CREDIT FOR FUEL-EFFICIENT MOTOR VEHICLES.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
other credits) is amended by inserting after section 30C the
following new section:

``SEC. 30D. FUEL-EFFICIENT MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
an amount equal to the applicable amount for each new
qualified fuel-efficient motor vehicle placed in service by
the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) New Qualified Fuel-Efficient Motor Vehicle.--For
purposes of this section, the term `new qualified fuel-
efficient motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle (as defined
under section 30(c)(2))--
``(1) which is a passenger automobile or a light truck,
``(2) which--
``(A) in the case of a passenger automobile, achieves a
fuel economy of not less than 34.5 miles per gallon, and
``(B) in the case of a light truck, achieves a fuel economy
of not less than 27.5 miles per gallon,
``(3) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(4) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer
and not for resale, and
``(5) which is made by a manufacturer for model year 2009,
2010, or 2011.
``(c) Applicable Amount.--For purposes of this section, the
applicable amount shall be determined as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case
of a In the case
passenger of a light
If the motor vehicle achieves a fuel economy automobile, truck, the
of: the applicable
applicable amount is:
amount is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.5 miles per gallon....................... $0 $630
28.5........................................ 0 710
29.5........................................ 0 780
30.5........................................ 0 850
31.5........................................ 0 920
32.5........................................ 0 980
33.5........................................ 0 1,040
34.5........................................ 630 1.090
35.5........................................ 700 1,140
36.5........................................ 760 1,190
37.5........................................ 820 1,240
38.5........................................ 880 1,280
39.5........................................ 940 1,320

[[Page S7735]]

40.5........................................ 990 1,360
41.5........................................ 1,040 1,400
42.5........................................ 1,090 1,430
43.5........................................ 1,140 1,470
44.5........................................ 1,180 1,500
45.5........................................ 1,220 1,530
46.5........................................ 1,260 1,560
47.5........................................ 1,300 1,590
48.5........................................ 1,340 1,620
49.5........................................ 1,370 1,640
50.5........................................ 1,410 1,670
51.5........................................ 1,440 1,690
52.5........................................ 1,470 1,720
53.5........................................ 1,500 1,740
54.5........................................ 1,530 1,760
55.5........................................ 1,560 1,780
56.5........................................ 1,590 1,800
57.5........................................ 1,610 1,820
58.5........................................ 1,640 1,840
59.5 or more................................ 1,660 1,860
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Fuel economy.--The term `fuel economy' has the
meaning given such term under section 32901(a)(10) of title
49, United States Code.
``(2) Model year.--The term `model year' has the meaning
given such term under section 32901(a)(14) of such title.
``(3) Other terms.--The terms `passenger automobile',
`light truck', and `manufacturer' have the meaning given such
terms in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of the
administration of title II of the Clean Air Act.
``(4) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle,
the basis of any property for which a credit is allowable
under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of such
credit so allowed.
``(5) No double benefit.--
``(A) Coordination with other vehicle credits.--No credit
shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any new
qualified fuel-efficient motor vehicle for any taxable year
if a credit is allowed with respect to such motor vehicle for
such taxable year under section 30 or 30B.
``(B) Other tax benefits.--The amount of any deduction or
credit (other than the credit allowable under this section
and any credit described in subparagraph (A)) allowable under
this chapter with respect to any new qualified fuel-efficient
motor vehicle shall be reduced by the amount of credit
allowed under subsection (a) for such motor vehicle for such
taxable year.
``(6) Property used outside the united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowable under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1)
or with respect to the portion of the cost of any property
taken into account under section 179.
``(7) Election not to take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any vehicle if the taxpayer
elects not to have this section apply to such vehicle.
``(8) Interaction with air quality and motor vehicle safety
standards.--Unless otherwise provided in this section, a
motor vehicle shall not be considered eligible for a credit
under this section unless such vehicle is in compliance
with--
``(A) the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act for
the applicable make and model year of the vehicle (or
applicable air quality provisions of State law in the case of
a State which has adopted such provision under a waiver under
section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act), and
``(B) the motor vehicle safety provisions of sections 30101
through 30169 of title 49, United States Code.
``(e) Credit May Be Transferred.--
``(1) In general.--A taxpayer may, in connection with the
purchase of a new qualified fuel-efficient motor vehicle,
transfer any credit allowable under subsection (a) to any
person who is in the trade or business of selling new
qualified fuel-efficient motor vehicles, but only if such
person clearly discloses to such taxpayer, through the use of
a window sticker attached to the new qualified fuel-efficient
vehicle--
``(A) the amount of any credit allowable under subsection
(a) with respect to such vehicle, and
``(B) a notification that the taxpayer will not be eligible
for any credit under section 30 or 30B with respect to such
vehicle unless the taxpayer elects not to have this section
apply with respect to such vehicle.
``(2) Consent required for revocation.--Any transfer under
paragraph (1) may be revoked only with the consent of the
Secretary.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations as necessary to ensure that any credit described
in paragraph (1) is claimed once and not retransferred by a
transferee.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (36), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (37) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(38) to the extent provided in section 30D(d)(4).''.
(2) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by inserting
``30D(d)(7),'' after ``30C(e)(5),''.
(3) The table of section for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 30C the
following new item:

``Sec. 30D. Fuel-efficient motor vehicle credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act with respect to model years 2009,
2010, and 2011.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OFFSETTING REVENUES.

It is the sense of the Senate that the cost of the
amendments made by section 2 shall be offset by equivalent
revenues specified in related legislation.
______

By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1620. A bill to provide the Coast Guard and NOAA with additional
authorities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, to strengthen the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil
Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator
Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after
the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of
crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill
in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we
have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness,
and response.
It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA
90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast
Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works
closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry.
While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in
Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our

[[Page S7736]]

ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a
major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential
impact of such a spill is now greater than ever.
According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from
vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of
oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled
665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768
gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In
2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and
1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore,
even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills
in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the
Exxon Valdez can be devastating.
Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like
salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to
the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine
Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must
take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual
and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill.
This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into
our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am
sure, point to similar examples.
In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing
focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response
capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and
conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced
the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March.
The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response
Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions.
New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify
States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters
that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also
atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State
vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels
in port.
Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to
promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit
cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan
requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and
outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that
occur from recreational vessels.
The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key
provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to
improve prevention and response.
First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings
remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include
the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would
establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and
equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the
salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most
recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the
passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will
greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities.
Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the
Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to
address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to
oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the
Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high-
risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would
require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of
oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that
knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010
``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such
contracts.
Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a
mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key
element of the oilspill prevention safety net for Washington State's
Olympic coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume
Port'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance
to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to
be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current
line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and
Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally
recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response.
The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the
oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State
Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco
Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the
council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90
directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into
negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with
a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait.
The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound
was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was
spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would
reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention,
detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the
development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of
oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote
sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the
condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United
States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a
specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of
oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United
States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require
the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil
discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other
appropriate international organizations.
Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider
because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues
to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and
the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent
spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the
coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and
Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil
transfer operations.
One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is
more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the
environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and
redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are
not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's
natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal
measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to
consider this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1620

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 ``Oil Pollution Prevention and
Response Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

[[Page S7737]]

Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Definitions.

Title I--Prevention of Oil Spills

Subtitle A--Coast Guard Provisions

Sec. 101. Rulemakings.
Sec. 102. Oil spill response capability.
Sec. 103. Inspections by Coast Guard.
Sec. 104. Oil transfers from vessels.
Sec. 105. Improvements to reduce human error and near-miss incidents.
Sec. 106. Navigational measures for protection of natural resources.
Sec. 107. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
Sec. 108. Higher volume port area regulatory definition change.
Sec. 109. Prevention of small oil spills.
Sec. 110. Improved coordination with tribal governments.
Sec. 111. Oil spill advisory council.
Sec. 112. Notification requirements.
Sec. 113. Cooperative State inspection authority.
Sec. 114. Tug escorts for laden oil tankers.
Sec. 115. Tank and non-tank vessel response plans.
Sec. 116. Report on the availability of technology to detect the loss
of oil.

Subtitle B--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Provisions

Sec. 151. Hydrographic surveys.
Sec. 152. Electronic navigational charts.

Title II--Response

Sec. 201. Rapid response system.
Sec. 202. Coast Guard oil spill database.
Sec. 203. Use of oil spill liability trust fund.
Sec. 204. Extension of financial responsibility.
Sec. 205. Liability for use of unsafe single-hull vessels.
Sec. 206. Response tugs.
Sec. 207. International efforts on enforcement.
Sec. 208. Investment of amounts in damage assessment and restoration
revolving fund.

Title III--Research and Miscellaneous Reports

Sec. 301. Federal Oil Spill Research Committee.
Sec. 302. Grant project for development of cost-effective detection
technologies.
Sec. 303. Status of implementation of recommendations by the National
Research Council.
Sec. 304. GAO report.
Sec. 305. Oil transportation infrastructure analysis.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Oil released into the Nation's marine waters can cause
substantial, and in some cases irreparable, harm to the
marine environment.
(2) The economic impact of oil spills is substantial.
Billions of dollars have been spent in the United States for
cleanup of, and damages due to, oil spills; while many
social, cultural, economic, and environmental damages remain
uncompensated.
(3) The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, enacted in response to
the worst vessel oil spill in United States history,
substantially reduced the amount of oil spills from vessels.
However, significant volumes of oil continue to be released,
and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably
high.
(4) Although the total number of oil spills from vessels
has decreased since passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
more oil was spilled in 2004 from vessels nationwide than was
spilled from vessels in 1992.
(5) Waterborne transportation of oil in the United States
continues to increase.
(6) Although the number of oil spills from tankers declined
from 193 in 1992 to 36 in 2004, spills from oil tankers tend
to be large with devastating impacts.
(7) While the number of oil spills from tank barges has
declined since 1992 (322 spills to 141 spills in 2004), the
volume of oil spilled from tank barges has remained constant
at approximately 200,000 gallons spilled each year.
(8) Oil spills from non-tank vessels averaged between
125,000 gallons and 400,000 gallons per year from 1992
through 2004 and accounted for over half of the total number
of spills from all sources, including vessels and non-vessel
sources.
(9) Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil
have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts,
Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, and involved barges, tank
vessels, and non-tank vessels. The value of waterfront
property, sport, commercial and tribal treaty fisheries,
recreation, tourism, and threatened and endangered species
continue to increase.
(10) It is more cost-effective to prevent oil spills than
it is to clean-up oil once it is released into the
environment.
(11) Of the 20 major vessel oil spill incidents since 1990
where liability limits have been exceeded, 10 involved tank
barges, 8 involved non-tank vessels, 2 involved tankers, and
only 1 involved a vessel that was double-hulled.
(12) Although recent technological improvements in oil
tanker design, such as double hulls and redundant steering,
increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea
and cannot ensure against oil spills, the leading cause of
which is human error.
(13) The Federal government has a responsibility to protect
the Nation's natural resources, public health, and
environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and
respond to oil spills.
(14) Environmentally fragile coastal areas are vitally
important to local economies and the way of life in coastal
States and federally recognized tribal governments. These
areas are particularly vulnerable to the threat of oil
spills. Coastal waters contribute approximately 75 percent of
all commercial shellfish and finfish catches, and over 81
percent of all recreational fishing catches in the United
States, outside of Alaska and Hawaii.
(15) The northern coast of Washington State and entrance to
Puget Sound is the principal corridor conveying Pacific Rim
commerce into the State, to Canada's largest port, and to the
United States' third largest naval complex. The area contains
a National Marine Sanctuary, a National Park, and many
National Wildlife Refuges contiguous with marine waters.
(16) State, local, and tribal governments have important
human resources and spill response capabilities which can
contribute to response efforts in the event of a significant
oil spill. State, local, and tribal governments may have
unique local knowledge of natural resources which can improve
the quality of spill response. For these reasons, State,
local and tribal governments need appropriate information to
have knowledge of spills, as well as incidents and activities
that may result in a spill, which can impact State waters.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Area to be avoided.--The term ``area to be avoided''
means a routing measure established by the International
Maritime Organization as an area to be avoided.
(2) Coastal state.--The term ``coastal State'' has the
meaning given that term by section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(4)).
(3) Commandant.--The term ``Commandant'' means the
Commandant of the Coast Guard.
(4) Non-tank vessel.--The term ``non-tank vessel'' means a
self-propelled vessel other than a tank vessel.
(5) Oil.--The term ``oil'' has the meaning given that term
by section 1001(23) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2701(23)).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
except where otherwise explicitly stated.
(7) Tank vessel.--The term ``tank vessel'' has the meaning
given that term by section 1001(34) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701(34)).
(8) Waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.--The term ``waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States'' means navigable waters (as defined in section
1001(21) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2701(21)) as well as--
(A) the territorial sea of the United States as defined in
Presidential Proclamation Number 5928 of December 27, 1988;
and
(B) the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States
established by Presidential Proclamation Number 5030 of March
10, 1983.
(9) Other terms.--The terms ``facility'', ``gross ton'',
``exclusive economic zone'', ``incident'', ``oil'', ``tank
vessel'', ``territorial seas'', and ``vessel'' have the
meaning given those terms in section 1001 of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701).

TITLE I--PREVENTION OF OIL SPILLS

Subtitle A--Coast Guard Provisions

SEC. 101. RULEMAKINGS.

(a) Status Report.--
(1) In general.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall provide a report to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on the status of all Coast Guard rulemakings
required (but for which no final rule has been issued as of
the date of enactment of this Act)--
(A) under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.); and
(B) for--
(i) automatic identification systems required under section
70114 of title 46, United States Code; and
(ii) inspection requirements for towing vessels required
under section 3306(j) of that title.
(2) Information required.--The Secretary shall include in
the report required by paragraph (1)--
(A) a detailed explanation with respect to each such
rulemaking as to--
(i) what steps have been completed;
(ii) what areas remain to be addressed; and
(iii) the cause of any delays; and
(B) the date by which a final rule may reasonably be
expected to be issued.
(b) Final Rules.--The Secretary shall issue a final rule in
each pending rulemaking under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) as soon as practicable, but in no
event later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 102. OIL SPILL RESPONSE CAPABILITY.

(a) Safety Standards for Towing Vessels.--In promulgating
regulations for towing vessels under chapter 33 of title 46,
United States Code, the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating shall--
(1) give priority to completing such regulations for towing
operations involving tank vessels; and
(2) consider the possible application of standards that, as
of the date of enactment

[[Page S7738]]

of this Act, apply to self-propelled tank vessels, and any
modifications that may be necessary for application to towing
vessels due to ship design, safety, and other relevant
factors.
(b) Reduction of Oil Spill Risk in Buzzards Bay.--No later
than January 1, 2008, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate a final
rule for Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, pursuant to the notice
of proposed rulemaking published on March 29, 2006, (71 Fed.
Reg. 15649), after taking into consideration public comments
submitted pursuant to that notice, to adopt measures to
reduce the risk of oil spills in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
(c) Reporting.--The Secretary shall transmit an annual
report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Resources on the extent to which tank vessels in Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts, are using routes recommended by the Coast
Guard.

SEC. 103. INSPECTIONS BY COAST GUARD.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
inspection schedule for all United States and foreign-flag
tank vessels that enter a United States port or place
increases the frequency and comprehensiveness of Coast Guard
safety inspections based on such factors as vessel age, hull
configuration, past violations of any applicable discharge
and safety regulations under United States and international
law, indications that the class societies inspecting such
vessels may be substandard, and other factors relevant to the
potential risk of an oil spill.
(b) Enhanced Verification of Structural Condition.--The
Coast Guard shall adopt, as part of its inspection
requirements for tank vessels, additional procedures for
enhancing the verification of the reported structural
condition of such vessels, taking into account the Condition
Assessment Scheme adopted by the International Maritime
Organization by Resolution 94(46) on April 27, 2001.

SEC. 104. OIL TRANSFERS FROM VESSELS.

(a) Regulations.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to
reduce the risks of oil spills in operations involving the
transfer of oil from or to a tank vessel. The regulations--
(1) shall focus on operations that have the highest risks
of discharge, including operations at night and in inclement
weather; and
(2) shall consider--
(A) requirements for use of equipment, such as putting
booms in place for transfers;
(B) operational procedures such as manning standards,
communications protocols, and restrictions on operations in
high-risk areas; or
(C) both such requirements and operational procedures.
(b) Application with State Laws.--The regulations
promulgated under subsection (a) do not preclude the
enforcement of any State law or regulation the requirements
of which are at least as stringent as requirements under the
regulations (as determined by the Secretary) that--
(1) applies in State waters;
(2) does not conflict with, or interfere with the
enforcement of, requirements and operational procedures under
the regulations; and
(3) has been enacted or promulgated before the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 105. IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE HUMAN ERROR AND NEAR-MISS
INCIDENTS.

(a) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure that, using available data--
(1) identifies the types of human errors that, combined,
account for over 50 percent of all oil spills involving
vessels that have been caused by human error in the past 10
years;
(2) identifies the most frequent types of near-miss oil
spill incidents involving vessels such as collisions,
groundings, and loss of propulsion in the past 10 years;
(3) describes the extent to which there are gaps in the
data with respect to the information required under
paragraphs (1) and (2) and explains the reason for those
gaps; and
(4) includes recommendations by the Secretary to address
the identified types of errors and incidents and to address
any such gaps in the data.
(b) Measures.--Based on the findings contained in the
report required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall take
appropriate action, both domestically and at the
International Maritime Organization, to reduce the risk of
oil spills from human errors.

SEC. 106. NAVIGATIONAL MEASURES FOR PROTECTION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES.

(a) Designation of At-risk Areas.--The Secretary and the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere shall
jointly identify areas where routing or other navigational
measures are warranted in waters subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to reduce the risk of oil spills and
potential damage to natural resources. In identifying those
areas, the Secretary and the Under Secretary shall give
priority consideration to natural resources of particular
ecological importance or economic importance, including
commercial fisheries, aquaculture facilities, marine
sanctuaries designated by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant
to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq.), estuaries of national significance designated under
section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1330), critical habitats (as defined in section 3(5)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)),
estuarine research reserves within the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System established by section 315 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and national parks and
national seashores administered by the National Park Service
under the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.).
(b) Factors Considered.--In determining whether
navigational measures are warranted, the Secretary and the
Under Secretary shall consider, at a minimum--
(1) the frequency of transits of vessels required to
prepare a response plan under section 311(j) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j));
(2) the type and quantity of oil transported as cargo or
fuel;
(3) the expected benefits of routing measures in reducing
risks of spills;
(4) the costs of such measures;
(5) the safety implications of such measures; and
(6) the nature and value of the resources to be protected
by such measures.
(c) Establishment of Routing and Other Navigational
Measures.--The Secretary shall establish such routing or
other navigational measures for areas identified under
subsection (a).
(d) Establishment of Avoidance Areas.--To the extent that
the Secretary and the Under Secretary conclude that the
establishment of areas to be avoided is warranted under this
section, they shall seek to establish such areas through the
International Maritime Organization or establish comparable
areas pursuant to regulations and in a manner that is
consistent with international law.
(e) Oil Shipment Data and Report.--
(1) Data collection.--The Secretary, through the Commandant
and in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, shall
analyze data on oil transported as cargo on vessels in the
navigable waters of the United States, including information
on--
(A) the quantity and type of oil being transported;
(B) the vessels used for such transportation;
(C) the frequency with which each type of oil is being
transported; and
(D) the point of origin, transit route, and destination of
each such shipment of oil.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall transmit a report, not
less frequently than quarterly, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, on the data
collected and analyzed under paragraph (1) in a format that
does not disclose information exempted from disclosure under
section 552b(e) of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 107. OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY.

(a) Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be
Avoided.--The Secretary and the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere shall revise the area to be avoided
off the coast of the State of Washington so that restrictions
apply to all vessels required to prepare a response plan
under section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) (other than fishing or research
vessels while engaged in fishing or research within the area
to be avoided).
(b) Emergency Oil Spill Drill.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Secretary, the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere shall
conduct a Safe Seas oil spill drill in the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary in fiscal year 2008. The Secretary
and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
jointly shall coordinate with other Federal agencies, State,
local, and tribal governmental entities, and other
appropriate entities, in conducting this drill.
(2) Other required drills.--Nothing in this subsection
supersedes any Coast Guard requirement for conducting
emergency oil spill drills in the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary. The Secretary shall consider conducting
regular field exercises, such as National Preparedness for
Response Exercise Program (PREP) in other national marine
sanctuaries as well as areas identified in section 106(a) of
this bill.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere for fiscal year 2008 $700,000 to carry
out this subsection.

SEC. 108. HIGHER VOLUME PORT AREA REGULATORY DEFINITION
CHANGE.

(a) In General.--Within 30 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, notwithstanding subchapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code, the Commandant shall modify the definition of
the term ``higher volume port area'' in section 155.1020 of
the Coast Guard regulations (33 C.F.R. 155.1020) by striking
``Port Angeles, WA'' in paragraph (13) of that section and
inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA'' without initiating a
rulemaking proceeding.
(b) Emergency Response Plan Reviews.--Within 5 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard shall
complete its review of any changes to emergency response

[[Page S7739]]

plans pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) resulting from the modification of the
higher volume port area definition required by subsection
(a).

SEC. 109. PREVENTION OF SMALL OIL SPILLS.

(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere, in consultation with other appropriate
agencies, shall establish an oil spill prevention and
education program for small vessels. The program shall
provide for assessment, outreach, and training and voluntary
compliance activities to prevent and improve the effective
response to oil spills from vessels and facilities not
required to prepare a vessel response plan under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, including recreational vessels,
commercial fishing vessels, marinas, and aquaculture
facilities. The Under Secretary may provide grants to sea
grant colleges and institutes designated under section 207 of
the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1126)
and to State agencies, tribal governments, and other
appropriate entities to carry out--
(1) regional assessments to quantify the source, incidence
and volume of small oil spills, focusing initially on regions
in the country where, in the past 10 years, the incidence of
such spills is estimated to be the highest;
(2) voluntary, incentive-based clean marina programs that
encourage marina operators, recreational boaters and small
commercial vessel operators to engage in environmentally
sound operating and maintenance procedures and best
management practices to prevent or reduce pollution from oil
spills and other sources;
(3) cooperative oil spill prevention education programs
that promote public understanding of the impacts of spilled
oil and provide useful information and techniques to minimize
pollution including methods to remove oil and reduce oil
contamination of bilge water, prevent accidental spills
during maintenance and refueling and properly cleanup and
dispose of oil and hazardous substances; and
(4) support for programs, including outreach and education
to address derelict vessels and the threat of such vessels
sinking and discharging oil and other hazardous substances,
including outreach and education to involve efforts to the
owners of such vessels.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere to carry out this section, $10,000,000
annually for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 110. IMPROVED COORDINATION WITH TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.

(a) In General.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
development of a tribal consultation policy, which recognizes
and protects to the maximum extent practicable tribal treaty
rights and trust assets in order to improve the Coast Guard's
consultation and coordination with the tribal governments of
federally recognized Indian tribes with respect to oil spill
prevention, preparedness, response and natural resource
damage assessment.
(b) National Planning.--The Secretary shall assist tribal
governments to participate in the development and capacity to
implement the National Contingency Plan and local Area
Contingency Plans to the extent they affect tribal lands,
cultural and natural resources. The Secretary shall ensure
that in regions where oil spills are likely to have an impact
on natural or cultural resources owned or utilized by a
federally recognized Indian tribe, the Coast Guard will--
(1) ensure that representatives of the tribal government of
the potentially affected tribes are included as part of the
regional response team cochaired by the Coast Guard and the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish policies for
responding to oil spills; and
(2) provide training of tribal incident commanders and
spill responders.
(c) Inclusion of Tribal Government.--The Secretary shall
ensure that, as soon as practicable after identifying an oil
spill that is likely to have an impact on natural or cultural
resources owned or utilized by a federally recognized Indian
tribe, the Coast Guard will--
(1) ensure that representatives of the tribal government of
the affected tribes are included as part of the incident
command system established by the Coast Guard to respond to
the spill;
(2) share information about the oil spill with the tribal
government of the affected tribe; and
(3) to the extent practicable, involve tribal governments
in deciding how to respond to such spill.
(d) Cooperative Arrangements.--The Coast Guard may enter
into memoranda of agreement and associated protocols with
Indian tribal governments in order to establish cooperative
arrangements for oil pollution prevention, preparedness, and
response. Such memoranda may be entered into prior to the
development of the tribal consultation and coordination
policy to provide Indian tribes grant and contract assistance
and may include training for preparedness and response and
provisions on coordination in the event of a spill. As part
of these memoranda of agreement, the Secretary may carry out
demonstration projects to assist tribal governments in
building the capacity to protect tribal treaty rights and
trust assets from oil spills to the maximum extent possible.
(e) Funding for Tribal Participation.--Subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard shall provide assistance to participating tribal
governments in order to facilitate the implementation of
cooperative arrangements under subsection (d) and ensure the
participation of tribal governments in such arrangements.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commandant
$500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to be
used to carry out this section.

SEC. 111. OIL SPILL ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Section 5002(k) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2732(k)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Washington state program.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the oil
spill advisory council established by section 90.56.120 of
title 90 of the Revised Code of Washington is deemed to be an
advisory council established under this section. The
provisions of this section, other than this paragraph, do not
apply to that oil spill advisory council.
``(B) Funding.--The owners or operators of terminal
facilities or crude oil tankers operating in Washington State
waters shall provide, on an annual basis, an aggregate amount
of not more than $1,000,000, as determined by the Secretary.
Such amount--
``(i) shall be made available to the oil spill advisory
council established by section 90.56.120 of title 90 of the
Revised Code of Washington;
``(ii) shall be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price
Index; and
``(iii) may be adjusted periodically upon the mutual
consent of the owners or operators of terminal facilities or
crude oil tankers operating in Washington State waters and
the Council.''.

SEC. 112. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Marine Casualties.--Section 6101 of title 46, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Notice to States and Tribal Governments.--Within 1
hour after receiving a report under this section, the
Secretary shall forward the report to each State and
federally recognized Indian tribal government that has
jurisdiction concurrent with the United States or adjacent to
waters in which the casualty occurred. Each State shall
identify for the Secretary the agency to which such reports
shall be forwarded and shall be responsible for forwarding
appropriate information to local and tribal governments
within its jurisdiction.''.
(b) State-required Notice of Bulk Oil Transfers.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a coastal State
may, by law, require a person to provide notice of 24 hours
or more to the State and to the United States Coast Guard
before transferring oil in bulk in an amount equivalent to
250 barrels or more to, from, or within a vessel in State
waters. The Commandant may assist coastal States in
developing appropriate methodologies for joint Federal and
State notification of any such transfers to minimize any
potential burden to vessels.

SEC. 113. COOPERATIVE STATE INSPECTION AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to execute a
joint enforcement agreement with the Governor of a coastal
state that meets the requirements of subsection (b) under
which--
(1) State law enforcement officers with marine law
enforcement responsibilities may be authorized to perform
duties of the Secretary relating to law enforcement
provisions under this title or any other marine resource law
enforced by the Secretary; and
(2) State inspectors are authorized to conduct inspections
of United States and foreign-flag vessels in United States
ports under the supervision of the Coast Guard and report and
refer any documented deficiencies or violations to the Coast
Guard for action.
(b) State Qualifications.--To be eligible to participate in
a joint enforcement agreement under subsection (a), a coastal
state shall--
(1) submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in
such form, and containing such information as the Secretary
may require; and
(2) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that--
(A) its State inspectors possess, or qualify for, a
merchant mariner officer or engineer license for at least a
1600 gross-ton vessel under subchapter B of title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(B) it has established support for its inspection program
to track, schedule, and monitor shipping traffic within its
waters; and
(C) it has a funding mechanism to maintain an inspection
program for at least 5 years.
(c) Technical Support and Training.--The Secretary may
provide technical support and training for State inspectors
who participate in a joint enforcement agreement under this
section.

SEC. 114. TUG ESCORTS FOR LADEN OIL TANKERS.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of State, in consultation with the Commandant,
shall enter into negotiations with the Government of Canada
to ensure that tugboat escorts are required for all tank
ships with a capacity over 40,000 deadweight tons in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and in Haro
Strait. The Commandant shall consult with

[[Page S7740]]

the State of Washington and affected tribal governments
during negotiations with the Government of Canada.

SEC. 115. TANK AND NON-TANK VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall promulgate regulations authorizing owners and
operators of tank and non-tank vessel to form non-profit
cooperatives for the purpose of complying with section 311(j)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)).

SEC. 116. REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF TECHNOLOGY TO DETECT
THE LOSS OF OIL.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on the
availability, feasibility, and potential cost of technology
to detect the loss of oil carried as cargo or as fuel on tank
and non-tank vessels greater than 400 gross tons.

Subtitle B--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Provisions

SEC. 151. HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS.

(a) Reduction of Backlog.--The Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere shall continue survey operations to
reduce the survey backlog in navigationally significant
waters outlined in its National Survey Plan, concentrating on
areas where oil and other hazardous materials are
transported.
(b) New Surveys.--By no later than January 1, 2010, the
Under Secretary shall complete new surveys, together with
necessary data processing, analysis, and dissemination, for
all areas in United States coastal areas determined by the
Under Secretary to be critical areas.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary for the purpose of
carrying out the new surveys required by subsection (b) such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2012.

SEC. 152. ELECTRONIC NAVIGATIONAL CHARTS.

(a) In General.--By no later than September 1, 2008, the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere shall
complete the electronic navigation chart suite for all
coastal waters of the United States.
(b) Priorities.--In completing the suite, the Under
Secretary shall give priority to producing and maintaining
the electronic navigation charts of the entrances to major
ports and the coastal transportation routes for oil and
hazardous materials, and for estuaries of national
significance designated under section 319 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary for the purpose of
completing the electronic navigation chart suite $6,200,000
for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

TITLE II--RESPONSE

SEC. 201. RAPID RESPONSE SYSTEM.

The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
shall develop and implement a rapid response system to
collect and predict in situ information about oil spill
behavior, trajectory and impacts, and a mechanism to provide
such information rapidly to Federal, State, tribal, and other
entities involved in a response to an oil spill.

SEC. 202. COAST GUARD OIL SPILL DATABASE.

The Secretary shall modify the Coast Guard's oil spill
database as necessary to ensure that it--
(1) includes information on the cause of oil spills
maintained in the database;
(2) is capable of facilitating the analysis of trends and
the comparison of accidents involving oil spills; and
(3) makes the data available to the public.

SEC. 203. USE OF OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--Section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) not more than $15,000,000 in each fiscal year shall
be available to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere for expenses incurred by, and activities
related to, response and damage assessment capabilities of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;''.
(b) Use of Fund in National Emergencies.--Notwithstanding
any provision of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2701 et seq.) to the contrary, no amount may be made
available from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund established
by section 9509 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
claims described in section 1012(a)(4) of that Act (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(4)) attributable to any national emergency or major
disaster declared by the President under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

SEC. 204. EXTENSION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Section 1016(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2716(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(1);
(2) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(2); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) any tank vessel over 100 gross tons (except a non-
self-propelled vessel that does not carry oil as cargo) using
any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States;''.

SEC. 205. LIABILITY FOR USE OF UNSAFE SINGLE-HULL VESSELS.

Section 1001(32) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2702(d)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) Vessels.--In the case of a vessel--
``(i) any person owning, operating, or demise chartering
the vessel; and
``(ii) the owner of oil being transported in a tank vessel
with a single hull after December 31, 2010, if the owner of
the oil knew, or should have known, from publicly available
information that the vessel had a poor safety or operational
record.''.

SEC. 206. RESPONSE TUGS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 311(j) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(J) Response tug.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall require the
stationing of a year round response tug of a minimum of 70-
tons bollard pull in the entry to the Strait of Juan de Fuca
at Neah Bay capable of providing rapid assistance and towing
capability to disabled vessels during severe weather
conditions.
``(ii) Shared resources.--The Secretary may authorize
compliance with the response tug stationing requirement of
clause (i) through joint or shared resources between or among
entities to which this subsection applies.
``(iii) Existing state authority not affected.--Nothing in
this subparagraph supersedes or interferes with any existing
authority of a State with respect to the stationing of rescue
tugs in any area under State law or regulations.
``(iv) Administration.--In carrying out this subparagraph,
the Secretary--

``(I) shall require the vessel response plan holders to
negotiate and adopt a cost-sharing formula and a schedule for
carrying out this subparagraph by no later than June 1, 2008;
``(II) shall establish a cost-sharing formula and a
schedule for carrying out this subparagraph by no later than
July 1, 2008 (without regard to the requirements of chapter 5
of title 5, United States Code) if the vessel response plan
holders fail to adopt the cost-sharing formula and schedule
required by subclause (I) of this clause by June 1, 2008; and
``(III) shall implement clauses (i) and (ii) of this
subparagraph by June 1, 2008, without a rulemaking and
without regard to the requirements of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code.

``(v) Long term tug capabilities.--Within 6 months after
implementing clauses (i) and (ii), and section 110 of the Oil
Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, the Secretary
shall execute a contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study of regional response tug and
salvage needs for Washington's Olympic coast. In developing
the scope of the study, the National Academy of Sciences
shall consult with Federal, State, and Tribal trustees as
well as relevant stakeholders. The study--

``(I) shall define the needed capabilities, equipment, and
facilities for a response tug in the entry to the Strait of
Juan de Fuca at Neah Bay in order to optimize oil spill
protection on Washington's Olympic coast, provide rescue
towing services, oil spill response, and salvage and fire-
fighting capabilities;
```(II) shall analyze the tug's multi-mission capabilities
as well as its ability to utilize cached salvage, oil spill
response, and oil storage equipment while responding to a
spill or a vessel in distress and make recommendations as to
the placement of this equipment;
``(III) shall address scenarios that consider all vessel
types and weather conditions and compare current Neah Bay tug
capabilities, costs, and benefits with other United States
industry funded response tugs, including those currently
operating in Alaska's Prince William Sound;
``(IV) shall determine whether the current level of
protection afforded by the Neah Bay response tug and
associated response equipment is comparable to protection in
other locations where response tugs operate, including Prince
William Sound, and if it is not comparable, shall make
recommendations as to how capabilities, equipment, and
facilities should be modified to achieve optimum
protection.''.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2008 such
sums as necessary to carry out section 311(j)(5)(J)(v) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5)(J)(v)).

SEC. 207. INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS ON ENFORCEMENT.

The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies, shall ensure that the Coast
Guard pursues stronger enforcement in the International
Maritime Organization of agreements related to oil
discharges, including joint enforcement operations, training,
and stronger compliance mechanisms.

SEC. 208. INVESTMENT OF AMOUNTS IN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION REVOLVING FUND.

The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of
the damage assessment and restoration revolving fund
described in title I of the Departments of Commerce, Justice,

[[Page S7741]]

and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1991 (33 U.S.C. 2706 note) as is not, in the Secretary's
judgment, required to meet current withdrawals in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States in accordance with
section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

TITLE III--RESEARCH AND MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS

SEC. 301. FEDERAL OIL SPILL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a committee to be
known as the Federal Oil Spill Research Committee.
(b) Membership.--The members of the Committee shall be
designated by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and shall include representatives from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United
States Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
such other Federal agencies as the President may designate. A
representative of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, designated by the Under Secretary, shall
serve as Chairman.
(c) Duties.--The Committee shall coordinate a comprehensive
program of oil pollution research, technology development,
and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in cooperation
and coordination with industry, universities, research
institutions, State governments, tribal governments, and
other nations, as appropriate, and shall foster cost-
effective research mechanisms, including the joint funding of
research.
(d) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Committee shall submit to Congress a report on
the current state of oil spill prevention and response
capabilities that--
(A) identifies current research programs conducted by
governments, universities, and corporate entities;
(B) assesses the current status of knowledge on oil
pollution prevention, response, and mitigation technologies;
(C) establishes national research priorities and goals for
oil pollution technology development related to prevention,
response, mitigation, and environmental effects;
(D) identifies regional oil pollution research needs and
priorities for a coordinated program of research at the
regional level developed in consultation with the State and
local governments, tribes;
(E) assesses the current state of spill response equipment,
and determines areas in need of improvement including amount,
age, quality, effectiveness, or necessary technological
improvements;
(F) assesses the current state of real time data available
to mariners, including water level, currents and weather
information and predictions, and assesses whether lack of
timely information increases the risk of oil spills; and
(G) includes such recommendations as the Committee deems
appropriate.
(2) Quinquennial updates.--The Committee shall submit a
report every fifth year after its first report under
paragraph (1) updating the information contained in its
previous report under this subsection.
(e) Advice and Guidance.--The Committee shall accept
comments and input from State and local governments, Indian
tribes, industry representatives, and other stakeholders.
(f) National Academy of Science Participation.--The
Chairman, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to--
(1) provide advice and guidance in the preparation and
development of the research plan; and
(2) assess the adequacy of the plan as submitted, and
submit a report to Congress on the conclusions of such
assessment.
(g) Research and Development Program.--
(1) In general.--The Committee shall establish a program
for conducting oil pollution research and development. Within
180 days after submitting its report to the Congress under
subsection (d), the Committee shall submit to Congress a plan
for the implementation of the program.
(2) Program elements.--The program established under
paragraph (1) shall provide for research, development, and
demonstration of new or improved technologies which are
effective in preventing, detecting, or mitigating oil
discharges and which protect the environment, and include--
(A) high priority research areas described in the report;
(B) environmental effects of acute and chronic oil spills;
(C) long-term effects of major spills and the long-term
cumulative effects of smaller endemic spills;
(D) new technologies to detect accidental or intentional
overboard discharges;
(E) response capabilities, such as improved booms, oil
skimmers, and storage capacity;
(F) methods to restore and rehabilitate natural resources
damaged by oil discharges; and
(G) research and training, in consultation with the
National Response Team, to improve industry's and
Government's ability to remove an oil discharge quickly and
effectively.
(h) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere shall manage a program of competitive grants
to universities or other research institutions, or groups of
universities or research institutions, for the purposes of
conducting the program established under subsection (g).
(2) Applications and conditions.--In conducting the
program, the Under Secretary--
(A) shall establish a notification and application
procedure;
(B) may establish such conditions, and require such
assurances, as may be appropriate to ensure the efficiency
and integrity of the grant program; and
(C) may make grants under the program on a matching or
nonmatching basis.
(i) Facilitation.--The Committee may develop memoranda of
agreement or memoranda of understanding with universities,
States, or other entities to facilitate the research program.
(j) Annual Reports.--The chairman of the Committee shall
submit an annual report to Congress on the activities carried
out under this section in the preceding fiscal year, and on
activities proposed to be carried out under this section in
the current fiscal year.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to carry out
this section--
(1) $200,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain available
until expended, for contracting with the National Academy of
Sciences and other expenses associated with developing the
report and research program; and
(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
2010, to remain available until expended, to fund grants
under subsection (h).
(l) Committee Replaces Existing Authority.--The authority
provided by this section supersedes the authority provided by
section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2761) for the establishment of the Interagency Committee on
Oil Pollution Research under subsection (a) of that section,
and that Committee shall cease operations and terminate on
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 302. GRANT PROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVE
DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall establish a grant
program for the development of cost-effective technologies,
such as infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing, for
detecting discharges of oil from vessels as well as methods
and technologies for improving detection and recovery of
submerged and sinking oils.
(b) Matching Requirement.--The Federal share of any project
funded under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent of the
total cost of the project.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act the Secretary shall provide a
report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and to the House of Representatives Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure on the results of the
program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Commandant to carry out this
section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
2010, to remain available until expended.
(e) Transfer Prohibited.--Administration of the program
established under subsection (a) may not be transferred
within the Department of Homeland Security or to another
department or Federal agency.

SEC. 303. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

(a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall provide a report to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on whether the Coast Guard has implemented
each of the recommendations directed at the Coast Guard, or
at the Coast Guard and other entities, in the following
National Research Council reports:
(1) ``Double-Hull Tanker Legislation, An Assessment of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990'', dated 1998.
(2) ``Oil in the Sea III, Inputs, Fates and Effects'',
dated 2003.
(b) Content.--The report shall contained a detailed
explanation of the actions taken by the Coast Guard pursuant
to the National Research Council reports. If the Secretary
determines that the Coast Guard has not fully implemented the
recommendations, the Secretary shall include a detailed
explanation of the reasons any such recommendation has not
been fully implemented, together with any recommendations the
Secretary deems appropriate for implementing any such non-
implemented recommendation.

SEC. 304. GAO REPORT.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General shall provide a written report with
recommendations for reducing the risks and frequency of
releases of oil from vessels (both intentional and
accidental) to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure that includes the
following:
(1) Continuing oil releases.--A summary of continuing
sources of oil pollution from vessels, the major causes of
such pollution, the extent to which the Coast Guard or other
Federal or State entities regulate such sources and enforce
such regulations, possible measures that could reduce such
releases of oil.
(2) Double hulls.--
(A) A description of the various types of double hulls,
including designs, construction, and materials, authorized by
the Coast

[[Page S7742]]

Guard for United States flag vessels, and by foreign flag
vessels pursuant to international law, and any changes with
respect to what is now authorized compared to the what was
authorized in the past.
(B) A comparison of the potential structural and design
safety risks of the various types of double hulls described
in subparagraph (A) that have been observed or identified by
the Coast Guard, or in public documents readily available to
the Coast Guard, including susceptibility to corrosion and
other structural concerns, unsafe temperatures within the
hulls, the build-up of gases within the hulls, ease of
inspection, and any other factors affecting reliability and
safety.
(3) Alternative designs for non-tank vessels.--A
description of the various types of alternative designs for
non-tank vessels to reduce risk of an oil spill, known
effectiveness in reducing oil spills, and a summary of how
extensively such designs are being used in the United States
and elsewhere.
(4) Response equipment.--An assessment of the sufficiency
of oil pollution response and salvage equipment, the quality
of existing equipment, new developments in the United States
and elsewhere, and whether new technologies are being used in
the United States.

SEC. 305. OIL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS.

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security shall,
in conjunction with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary
of Transportation, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the heads of other appropriate Federal
agencies, contract with the National Research Council to
conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all
aspects of oil transportation infrastructure in the United
States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety,
including an assessment of the adequacy of contingency and
emergency plans in the event of a natural disaster or
emergency.
<all>
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1622. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to
reevaluate the band plans for the upper 700 megaHertz band and the un-
auctioned portions of the lower 700 megaHertz band and recongifure them
to include spectrum to be licensed for small geographic areas; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce
legislation to encourage the deployment of next generation wireless
services in rural areas. Cell phones have become a vital part of so
many lives. Today, there are more than 200 million wireless subscribers
in the United States alone, a subscribership that continues to grow.
This burgeoning success makes it all the more imperative that we foster
an environment where this technology and future wireless advancements
can flourish and thrive.
As we consider the myriad issues affecting this debate, we must bear
in mind that along with mobility, convenience and safety, cell phones
today engender countless additional benefits from access to
information, global satellite positioning, to entertainment. While
wireless phones have been rapidly adopted by the general public,
wireless service faces flaws that could hinder further adoption. I can
tell you from firsthand experience how frustrated it can be when I am
at home in Maine when I cannot get cellular service. Something must be
done in order to improve advance the capability of wireless service
that people across my State and others are relying on in increasing
numbers every day.
We must be vigilant in safeguarding our smaller communities from
remaining under served and strive to ensure that they are taken into
account as the Federal Government shapes policy in response to this
changing technological landscape. As many of my colleagues are well
aware, wireless services, such as cell phones, handheld devices, and
some Internet services use frequencies on the radio spectrum to
transfer voice and data from one user to another. It is the job of the
service provider to convert these airwaves into the valuable services
that consumers demand. The quality of service in a given place depends
on how much investment the service provider has put into
infrastructure. More urban locations tend to have better service
because the return on investment is much higher because of the
concentration of customers. This reality does not mean that rural areas
are left without service. Viable business models exist that can sustain
service in these more remote locations. Oftentimes smaller, local
wireless companies can serve these areas better than nationwide service
providers.
But one of the greatest barriers to entry in the wireless industry is
acquiring a spectrum license in which a service can be operated.
Companies bid billions of dollars for rights to be one of the Nation's
most critical technological resources. The digital television
transition is on the verge of releasing new spectrum into the
marketplace, the much-anticipated 700 megaHertz spectrum auction. While
I am grateful that the Federal Communications Commission has stated its
intention to auction off the spectrum in licenses that cover both large
and small geographic areas, without this consideration, smaller
companies will be unable to compete in the bidding process. That is
patently unacceptable.
The bill I introduce today aims to address this problem by
reiterating to the Federal Communications Commission the necessity of
protecting smaller communities during the 700 MHz spectrum that will be
auctioned as a result of the digital television transition. In the
final auction rules, the FCC must divide some of the frequency
allocations into smaller area licenses so that local and regional
wireless companies can have an opportunity to compete in the bidding
process. The proper balance of large and small licenses will encourage
the deployment of advanced services throughout all parts of the United
States.
This bill is not meant to circumvent the expertise or purview of the
Federal Communications Commission, nor call into question its
intentions. It merely directs the FCC to use its acumen and good
offices to develop a plan that will benefit the entire Nation. Rural
America deserves the same benefits of wireless technologies that are
available in urban areas. This act gives those best able to serve
remote areas the required tools to deploy those services.
______

By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Ensign, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Vitter, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Thune, Mr. Bond, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Burr, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Allard):
S. 1623. A bill to require the withholding of United States
contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that
the United Nations is not engaged in global taxation schemes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 1623. I introduce
this bill to prevent the imposition of global taxes on the United
States. The current efforts of the United Nations and other
international organizations are to develop and advocate a type of tax
system that will keep them from having to answer to anybody.
Last year, I introduced legislation, S. 3633, which garnered the
support of 31 cosponsors, and I am pleased to reintroduce this bill
today with 23 cosponsors.
This bill states if the United Nations or other international
organizations continue to pursue global taxation, the United States
will withhold 20 percent of the assessed contributions to the regular
budget of these organizations. This measure will last until
certification is given by the President to the Congress that no
international organization has legal taxation authority in the United
States, that no taxes or fees have been imposed on the United States,
and that no taxes have been proposed by any of these international
organizations.
One has to wonder sometimes what has happened to sovereignty in
America. There are people in this body who don't think anything is good
unless it is somehow proposed by some international organization, and
quite often the interests of international organizations are not the
same interests of our Nation. Our Government's primary leverage with
the United Nations is controlling the flow of our regular
contributions. By collecting enormous and global taxes on top of our
regular contributions, the United Nations, or any other of these
international organizations, would be accountable to no one. The United
Nations' abuse of international trust, rampant corruption, and
widespread waste are now all well-known. Allowing this clearly
dysfunctional institution to extract U.S. dollars is absurd. Permitting
this would

[[Page S7743]]

condone the U.N.'s long sought-after goal of a U.N.-led global
governance--something not in the best interest of the United States.
The United States already pays 27 percent of the U.N. Peacekeeping
budget and 22 percent of the regular U.N. dues and special assessments,
the majority of which our Government tracks very poorly. To further
loosen the reins on the United Nations would be disastrous. We can't
allow this to happen.
It is fascinating to watch the various things that are not in the
best interests of this country and the fact that we are paying for 25
percent of that. This is a way we would be able to inject into this
system something that would be far better and would take care of just
the sovereignty of the United States; those things that are in our best
interests and not just in the best interests of some international
organization.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1624. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that the exception from the treatment of publicly traded partnerships
as corporations for partnerships with passive-type income shall not
apply to partnerships directly or indirectly deriving income from
providing investment adviser and related asset management services; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and
colleague, Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation to preserve the
corporate tax base.
The Federal Government taxes corporations. The tax law treats
corporations as economic entities, and taxes them separately from the
corporation's shareholders. And the tax law treats partnerships
differently from corporations.
Recently, some private equity and hedge fund entities have sought to
go public without paying a corporate tax. The bill that we introduce
today would treat all publicly traded partnerships that directly or
indirectly receive income from providing investment advisory or asset
management services as corporations. The tax law ought to treat as
corporations entities that function as corporations.
Congress enacted the publicly traded partnership rules in 1987 to
preserve the corporate tax base. Congress was concerned that publicly
traded partnerships might be able to enjoy the privilege of going
public like a corporation without the corporate toll charge. The House
committee report stated:

These changes [referring to the corporate minimum tax
included in the 1986 Act] reflect an intent to preserve the
corporate level tax. The committee is concerned that the
intent of these changes is being circumvented by the growth
of publicly traded partnerships that are taking advantage of
an unintended opportunity for disincorporation and elective
integration of the corporate and shareholder levels of tax.

Congress carved out an exception for those partnerships that receive
90 percent or more of their income from passive income. Passive income
includes dividends, rents, royalties, interest, and the sale of capital
gains. But Congress generally treated publicly traded partnerships that
derive income from active businesses as corporations.
To emphasize that point, in 1987, the House committee report stated:

In general, the purpose of distinguishing between passive-
type income and other income is to distinguish those
partnerships that are engaged in activities commonly
considered as essentially no more than investments, and those
activities more typically conducted in corporate form that
are in the nature of active business activities.

This year, some private equity and hedge fund management firms are
attempting to qualify for partnership tax treatment. They seek to do so
even though they derive virtually all of their income from providing
asset management and financial advisory services. These management
firms argue that they are able to achieve this result by claiming that
all of their income from asset management and investment advisory
services is passive. But objective observers would say that this income
actually arises from active businesses. Congress's intent in 1987 was
to treat such publicly traded partnerships as corporations. In the
legislation that we introduce today, we seek to ensure that Congress's
original intent is carried out.
This legislation is also important to ensure that some corporations
are not disadvantaged because they conduct business in the corporate
form and pay taxes as a corporation. Asset management service and
investment advisory partnerships provide the same types of active
business services as their corporate competitors. Our tax system
functions best when it is fair. The tax law ought to treat similarly
situated taxpayers the same. Thus, these publicly traded partnerships
should be taxed as corporations.
The legislation that we introduce today would clarify the purpose of
the publicly traded partnership rules. Our bill would deny the ability
of an active financial advisory and asset management business to go
public and avoid a corporate level tax on a significant amount of its
income.
Senator Grassley and I have asked the staff of the Treasury
Department for their views on these transactions, how they plan to
address this issue, and whether they think additional statutory changes
are necessary to clarify the intent of the publicly traded partnership
rules. If a statutory change is needed, then this legislation will
accomplish that change. If a change is not needed, then this
legislation does not alter the ability of Treasury Department and the
Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance and enforce congressional
intent.
I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Grassley and me to protect
the original intent of Congress, to protect the tax base, and to treat
similarly situated entities similarly. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation
and reasons for change be printed in the Record.
There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1624

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION FROM TREATMENT OF PUBLICLY TRADED
PARTNERSHIPS AS CORPORATIONS NOT TO APPLY TO
PARTNERSHIPS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DERIVING
INCOME FROM PROVIDING INVESTMENT ADVISER AND
RELATED ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 7704(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to exception for partnerships with
passive-type income) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Exception not to apply to partnerships providing
certain investment adviser and related asset management
services.--This subsection shall not apply to any partnership
which directly or indirectly has any item of income or gain
(including capital gains or dividends), the rights to which
are derived from--
``(A) services provided by any person as an investment
adviser (as defined in section 202(a)(11) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)) or as a person
associated with an investment adviser (as defined in section
202(a)(17) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C.
80b-2(a)(17)), or
``(B) asset management services provided by any person
described in subparagraph (A) (or any related person) in
connection with the management of assets with respect to
which services described in subparagraph (A) were provided.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), the determination as to
whether services provided by any person were provided as an
investment adviser shall be made without regard to whether
the person is required to register as an investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years
of a partnership beginning on or after June 14, 2007.
(2) Transition rule for certain partnerships.--In the case
of a partnership--
(A) the interests in which on June 14, 2007, were--
(i) traded on an established securities market, or
(ii) readily tradeable on a secondary market (or the
substantial equivalent thereof), or
(B) which, on or before June 14, 2007, filed a registration
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission under
section 6 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f) which
was required solely by reason of an initial public offering
of interests in the partnership,
the amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable
years of the partnership beginning on or after June 14, 2012.
Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to a registration statement
which is filed with respect to securities which are to be
issued on a delayed or continuous basis (as determined under
the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission
promulgated under such Act).

[[Page S7744]]

____
A. Treatment of Publicly Traded Partnerships Directly or Indirectly
Deriving Income From Investment Adviser Services and Related Asset
Management Services

Present Law

Under present law, a publicly traded partnership generally
is treated as a corporation for Federal tax purposes (sec.
7704(a)). For this purpose, a publicly traded partnership
means any partnership if interests in the partnership are
traded on an established securities market, or interests in
the partnership are readily tradable on a secondary market
(or the substantial equivalent thereof).
An exception from corporate treatment is provided for
certain publicly traded partnerships, 90 percent or more of
whose gross income is qualifying income (sec. 7704(c)(2)).
However, this exception does not apply to any partnership
that would be described in section 851 (a) if it were a
domestic corporation, which includes a corporation registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as a management
company or unit investment trust.
Qualifying income includes interest, dividends, and gains
from the disposition of a capital asset (or of property
described in section 1231 (b)) that is held for the
production of income that is qualifying income. Qualifying
income also includes rents from real property, gains from the
sale or other disposition of real property, and income and
gains from the exploration, development, mining or
production, processing, refining, transportation (including
pipelines transporting gas, oil, or products thereof), or the
marketing of any mineral or natural resource (including
fertilizer, geothermal energy, and timber). It also includes
income and gains from commodities (not described in section
1221 (a)(1)) or futures, options, or forward contracts with
respect to such commodities (including foreign currency
transactions of a commodity pool) in the case of partnership,
a principal activity of which is the buying and selling of
such commodities, futures, options or forward contracts.

Reasons for Change

The rules generally treating publicly traded partnerships
as corporations were enacted in 1987 to address concern about
long-term erosion of the corporate tax base. At that time,
Congress stated, ``[t]o the extent that activities would
otherwise be conducted in corporate form, and earnings would
be subject to two levels of tax (at the corporate and
shareholder levels), the growth of publicly traded
partnerships engaged in such activities tends to jeopardize
the corporate tax base.'' (H.R. Rep. No. 100-391, 100th
Cong., 1st Sess. 1065.) Referring to recent tax law changes
affecting corporations, the Congress stated, ``[t]hese
changes reflect an intent to preserve the corporate level
tax. The committee is concerned that the intent of these
changes is being circumvented by the growth of publicly
traded partnerships that are taking advantage of an
unintended opportunity for disincorporation and elective
integration of the corporate and shareholder levels of tax.''
(H.R. Rep. No. 100-391, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 1066.)
These same concerns hold true today, as industry sectors
that have never conducted business as publicly traded
partnerships start to shift into that form of doing business.
News reports have called attention to transactions set in
motion in recent months in which partnerships earning income
from investment adviser and related asset management services
made or will make their interests available on an exchange or
market. This trend causes deep concern about preservation
of the corporate tax base as it presages the transfer of
corporate assets to publicly traded partnerships. When
corporate assets are moved to partnership form without
relinquishing that hallmark of corporate status, access to
capital markets, some businesses are able to lower their
cost of capital at the expense of the Federal Treasury.
This result subverts a principal purpose and policy of the
present-law rules treating publicly traded partnerships as
corporations: to preserve the corporate tax base.
To the extent these transactions represent a trend toward
increased utilization of publicly traded partnerships in the
case of businesses earning income from investment adviser and
related asset management services, there is the additional
concern of distortions caused by inconsistent treatment under
the tax law. The present-law exception in the case of
partnerships, 90 percent or more of whose gross income is
qualifying income, is not intended to encompass income from
investment adviser and related asset management services. The
bill serves to address this troubling trend by strengthening
the rules treating publicly traded partnerships as
corporations.

Explanation of Provision

The bill provides generally that the exception from
corporate treatment for a publicly traded partnership, 90
percent or more of whose gross income is qualifying income,
does not apply in the case of a partnership that directly or
indirectly derives income from investment adviser services or
related asset management services. Thus, such a partnership
is treated as a corporation for Federal tax purposes and is
subject to the corporate income tax.
Under the bill, the exception from corporate treatment for
a publicly traded partnership does not apply to any
partnership that, directly or indirectly, has any item of
income or gain (including capital gains or dividends), the
rights to which are derived from services provided by any
person as an investment adviser, as defined in the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, or as a person associated with an
investment adviser, as defined in that Act. Further, the
exception from corporate treatment does not apply to a
partnership that, directly or indirectly, has any item of
income or gain (including capital gains or dividends), the
rights to which are derived from asset management services
provided by an investment adviser, a person associated with
an investment adviser, or any person related to either, in
connection with the management of assets with respect to
which investment adviser services were provided. For purposes
of the bill, these determinations are made without regard to
whether the person is required to register as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In the
absence of regulatory guidance as to the definition of a
related person, it is intended that the definition of a
related person in section 197(f)(9)(C)(i) apply.
For example, a publicly traded partnership that has income
(including capital gains or dividend income) from a profits
interest in a partnership, the rights to which income are
derived from the performance of services by any person as an
investment adviser, is treated as a corporation for Federal
tax purposes under the bill. As a further example, a publicly
traded partnership that receives a dividend from a
corporation that receives or accrues income, the rights to
which are derived from services provided by any person as an
investment adviser, is treated as a corporation for Federal
tax purposes under the bill.
Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 definition, an
investment adviser means any person who, for compensation,
engages in the business of advising others, either directly
or through publications or writings, as to the value of
securities or as to the advisability of investing in,
purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation
and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates
analyses or reports concerning securities. Under this
definition, exceptions are provided in the case of certain
banks, certain brokers or dealers, as well as certain others,
provided criteria specified in that Act are met. These
exceptions apply for purposes of the bill. No inference is
intended that income from activities described in the
exceptions is qualifying income for purposes of section 7704.

Effective Date

The bill generally is effective for taxable years of a
partnership beginning on or after June 14, 2007.
Under a transition rule for certain partnerships, the bill
applies for taxable years beginning on or after June 14,
2012. The transition rule applies in the case of a
partnership the interests in which on June 14, 2007, were
traded on an established securities market, or were readily
tradable on a secondary market (or the substantial equivalent
thereof). In addition, the transition rule generally applies
in the case of a partnership which, on or before June 14,
2007, filed a registration statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under section 6 of the Securities Act of
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f) that was required solely by reason of an
initial public offering of interests in the partnership.
However, the transition rule does not apply if the
registration statement is filed with respect to securities
that are to be issued on a delayed or continuous basis
(pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933).
Thus, a shelf registration on or before June 14, 2007, of
interests in a partnership does not cause the partnership to
be eligible for the transition rule. Rather, in the case of
such a partnership, the bill is effective for taxable years
of the partnership beginning on or after June 14, 2007.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this legislation that Senator Baucus and
I are introducing addresses an important issue--preserving the
integrity of the Tax Code. Recent public offerings, effected and
announced, by private equity and hedge fund management firms have
raised serious tax concerns that if left unaddressed have the potential
to fundamentally reduce the corporate tax base over the long run,
leading other individuals and business taxpayers with a greater share
of the Nation's tax burden.
Congress enacted the publicly traded partnership rules in 1987 out of
concern with erosion of the corporate tax base. Given the ease with
which taxpayers can choose the type of entity for their business, an
appropriate ``bright line'' to define entities that should be subject
to a corporate level tax was considered to be those entities that are
publicly traded. A hallmark of corporate status is access to public
markets. Another concern was that the ability to be publicly traded
without paying an entity level tax would create an unwarranted
competitive advantage over publicly traded corporations.
These concerns--corporate tax base erosion and a tax-created
competitive advantage--were not considered to be implicated in cases
where the partnership's income is from passive investments because
investors could earn

[[Page S7745]]

such income directly--e.g., interest--or because the income is already
subject to a corporate level tax--e.g., dividends. The following key
quote from the legislative history illustrates this point:

The recent and proposed public offerings of private equity and hedge
fund management firms claim to qualify for partnership tax treatment,
even though virtually all of their income is derived from providing
asset management and financial advisory services. This result is
claimed to be accomplished by structuring service fees in a way that
purports to characterize those fees as passive-type income. Whether or
not these structures comply with the letter of the law, they are
inconsistent with the purposes of the publicly traded partnership
rules.
This legislation clarifies the purpose of the publicly traded
partnership rules by denying the ability of an active financial
advisory and asset management business to go public and avoid a
corporate level tax on a significant amount of its income. Senator
Baucus and I have asked Treasury for their views on these structures,
how they plan to address this issue, and whether they think additional
statutory changes are necessary to clarify the intent of the publicly
traded partnership rules. If a change is necessary, this legislation
will accomplish that change. If a change isn't necessary, this
legislation does not alter the ability of Treasury and the Internal
Revenue Service to issue guidance and enforce Congressional intent.
In his introductory remarks, Senator Baucus gave a technical
description of this legislation and reasons for change, which reflects
my understanding and intent in introducing this bill.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.
Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Kerry, and Ms. Collins):
S. 1628. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize
programs to increase the number of nurse faculty and to increase the
domestic nursing and physical therapy workforce, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation with my
colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Lincoln, Senator Ben Nelson,
Senator Kerry, and Senator Collins, that will help to address the
critical shortage of nurse faculty and physical therapists that is
facing our Nation. The nationwide nursing shortage is growing rapidly,
because the average age of the nursing workforce is near retirement and
because the aging population has increasing health care needs. And the
shortage is one that affects the entire Nation. A 2006 Health Resources
and Services Administration report estimated that the national nursing
shortage would more than triple, to more than 1 million nurses, by the
year 2020. The report also predicts that all 50 States will experience
nursing shortages by 2015. Quite simply, we need to educate more
nurses, or we, as a Nation, will not have enough trained nurses to meet
the needs of our aging society.
One of the biggest constraints to educating more nurses is a shortage
of nursing faculty. Almost three-quarters of nursing programs surveyed
by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing cited faculty
shortages as a reason for turning away qualified applicants. Although
applications to nursing programs have surged 59 percent over the past
decade, the National League for Nursing estimates that 147,000
qualified applications were turned away in 2004. This represents a 27
percent decrease in admissions over the previous year, indicating the
need to scale up capacity in nursing programs is more critical than
ever.
I know that in my home state of New Mexico, nursing programs turned
down almost half of qualified applicants, even though the Health
Resources and Services Administration predicts that New Mexico will
only be able to meet 64 percent of its demand for nurses by 2020. With
a national nurse faculty workforce that averages 53.5 years of age, and
an average nurse faculty retirement age of 62.5 years, we cannot and
must not wait any longer to address nurse faculty shortages.
Nursing faculty are not the only segment of the population that is
aging. As the baby boom generation ages, there will be an increased
need for nurses to care for the elderly. However, less than 1 percent
of practicing nurses have a certification in geriatrics.
The Nurse Faculty and Physical Therapist Education Act will amend the
Public Health Service Act, to help alleviate the faculty shortage by
providing funds to help nursing schools increase enrollment and
graduation from nursing doctoral programs. The act will increase
partnering opportunities between academic institutions and medical
practices, enhance cooperative education, support marketing outreach,
and strengthen mentoring programs. The bill will increase the number of
nurses who complete nursing doctoral programs and seek employment as
faculty members and nursing leaders in academic institutions. In
addition, the bill authorizes awards to train nursing faculty in
clinical geriatrics, so that more nursing students will be equipped for
our aging population.
By addressing the faculty shortage, we are addressing the nursing
shortage.
The aging population will also require additional health workers in
other fields. Physical therapy was listed as one of the fastest growing
occupations by the U.S. Department of Labor, with a projected job
growth of greater than 36 percent between 2004 and 2014. The need for
physical therapists is particularly acute in rural and urban
underserved areas, which have three to four times fewer physical
therapists per capita than suburban areas. To address this need, the
bill also authorizes a distance education pilot program to improve
access to educational opportunity for both nursing and physical therapy
students. Finally, the bill calls for a study by the Institute of
Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences which will recommend how
to balance education, labor, and immigration policies to meet the
demand for qualified nurses and physical therapists.
The provisions of the Nurse Faculty and Physical Therapist Education
Act are vital to overcoming workforce challenges. By addressing nurse
faculty and physical therapist shortages, we will enhance both access
to care and the quality of care. I would like to thank my colleagues,
Senator Coleman, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Ben Nelson, for their
leadership and hard work on this important issue.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1628

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Nurse
Faculty and Physical Therapist Education Act of 2007''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Nurse Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205) has
helped to support students preparing to be nurse educators.
Yet, nursing schools nationwide are forced to deny admission
to individuals seeking to become nurses and nurse educators
due to the lack of qualified nurse faculty.
(2) The American Association of Colleges of Nursing
reported that 42,866 qualified applicants were denied
admission to nursing baccalaureate and graduate programs in
2006, with faculty shortages identified as a major reason for
turning away students.
(3) Seventy-one percent of schools have reported
insufficient faculty as the primary reason for not accepting
qualified applicants. The primary reasons for lack of faculty
are lack of funds to hire new faculty, inability to identify,
recruit and hire faculty in the competitive job market as of
May 2007, and lack of nursing faculty available in different
geographic areas.
(4) Despite the fact that in 2006, 52.4 percent of
graduates of doctoral nursing programs enter education roles,
the 103 doctoral programs nationwide produced only 437
graduates, which is only an additional 6 graduates from 2005.
This annual graduation rate is insufficient to meet the needs
for nurse faculty. In keeping with other professional
academic disciplines, nurse faculty at colleges and
universities are typically doctorally prepared.
(5) The nursing faculty workforce is aging and will be
retiring.

[[Page S7746]]

(6) With the average retirement age of nurse faculty at
62.5 years of age, and the average age of doctorally prepared
faculty, as of May 2007, that hold the rank of professor,
associate professor, and assistant professor is 58.6, 55.8,
and 51.6 years, respectively, the health care system faces
unprecedented workforce and health access challenges with
current and future shortages of deans, nurse educators, and
nurses.
(7) Research by the National League of Nursing indicates
that by 2019 approximately 75 percent of the nursing faculty
population (as of May 2007) is expected to retire.
(8) A wave of nurses will be retiring from the profession
in the near future. As of May 2007, the average age of a
nurse in the United States is 46.8 years old. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics estimates that more than 1,200,000 new and
replacement registered nurses will be needed by 2014.
(9) By 2030, the number of adults age 65 and older is
expected to double to 70,000,000, accounting for 20 percent
of the population. As the population ages, the demand for
nurses and nursing faculty will increase.
(10) Despite the need for nurses to treat an aging
population, few registered nurses in the United States are
trained in geriatrics. Less than 1 percent of practicing
nurses have a certification in geriatrics and 3 percent of
advanced practice nurses specialize in geriatrics.
(11) Specialized training in geriatrics is needed to treat
older adults with multiple health conditions and improve
health outcomes. Approximately 80 percent of Medicare
beneficiaries have 1 chronic condition, more than 60 percent
have 2 or more chronic conditions, and at least 10 percent
have coexisting Alzheimer's disease or other dementias that
complicate their care and worsen health outcomes. Two-thirds
of Medicare spending is attributed to 20 percent of
beneficiaries who have 5 or more chronic conditions. Research
indicates that older persons receiving care from nurses
trained in geriatrics are less frequently readmitted to
hospitals or transferred from nursing facilities to hospitals
than those who did not receive care from a nurse trained in
geriatrics.
(12) The Department of Labor projected that the need for
physical therapists would increase by 36.7 percent between
2004 and 2014.
(13) The need for physical therapists is particularly acute
rural and urban underserved areas, which have 3 to 4 times
fewer physical therapists per capita than suburban areas.

TITLE I--GRANTS FOR NURSING EDUCATION

SEC. 101. NURSE FACULTY EDUCATION.

Part D of title VIII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 296p et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 832. NURSE FACULTY EDUCATION.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Health Resources and Services Administration, shall establish
a Nurse Faculty Education Program to ensure an adequate
supply of nurse faculty through the awarding of grants to
eligible entities to--
``(1) provide support for the hiring of new faculty, the
retaining of existing faculty, and the purchase of
educational resources;
``(2) provide for increasing enrollment and graduation
rates for students from doctoral programs; and
``(3) assist graduates from the entity in serving as nurse
faculty in schools of nursing;
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
``(1) be an accredited school of nursing that offers a
doctoral degree in nursing in a State or territory;
``(2) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require;
``(3) develop and implement a plan in accordance with
subsection (c);
``(4) agree to submit an annual report to the Secretary
that includes updated information on the doctoral program
involved, including information with respect to--
``(A) student enrollment;
``(B) student retention;
``(C) graduation rates;
``(D) the number of graduates employed part-time or full-
time in a nursing faculty position; and
``(E) retention in nursing faculty positions within 1 year
and 2 years of employment;
``(5) agree to permit the Secretary to make on-site
inspections, and to comply with the requests of the Secretary
for information, to determine the extent to which the school
is complying with the requirements of this section; and
``(6) meet such other requirements as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Not later than 1 year after the
receipt of a grant under this section, an entity shall
develop and implement a plan for using amounts received under
this grant in a manner that establishes not less than 2 of
the following:
``(1) Partnering opportunities with practice and academic
institutions to facilitate doctoral education and research
experiences that are mutually beneficial.
``(2) Partnering opportunities with educational
institutions to facilitate the hiring of graduates from the
entity into nurse faculty, prior to, and upon completion of
the program.
``(3) Partnering opportunities with nursing schools to
place students into internship programs which provide hands-
on opportunity to learn about the nurse faculty role.
``(4) Cooperative education programs among schools of
nursing to share use of technological resources and distance
learning technologies that serve rural students and
underserved areas.
``(5) Opportunities for minority and diverse student
populations (including aging nurses in clinical roles)
interested in pursuing doctoral education.
``(6) Pre-entry preparation opportunities including
programs that assist returning students in standardized test
preparation, use of information technology, and the
statistical tools necessary for program enrollment.
``(7) A nurse faculty mentoring program.
``(8) A Registered Nurse baccalaureate to Ph.D. program to
expedite the completion of a doctoral degree and entry to
nurse faculty role.
``(9) Career path opportunities for 2nd degree students to
become nurse faculty.
``(10) Marketing outreach activities to attract students
committed to becoming nurse faculty.
``(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to entities from States and
territories that have a lower number of employed nurses per
100,000 population.
``(e) Number and Amount of Grants.--Grants under this
section shall be awarded as follows:
``(1) In fiscal year 2008, the Secretary shall award 10
grants of $100,000 each.
``(2) In fiscal year 2009, the Secretary shall award an
additional 10 grants of $100,000 each and provide continued
funding for the existing grantees under paragraph (1) in the
amount of $100,000 each.
``(3) In fiscal year 2010, the Secretary shall award an
additional 10 grants of $100,000 each and provide continued
funding for the existing grantees under paragraphs (1) and
(2) in the amount of $100,000 each.
``(4) In fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall provide
continued funding for each of the existing grantees under
paragraphs (1) through (3) in the amount of $100,000 each.
``(5) In fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall provide
continued funding for each of the existing grantees under
paragraphs (1) through (3) in the amount of $100,000 each.
``(f) Limitations.--
``(1) Payment.--Payments to an entity under a grant under
this section shall be for a period of not to exceed 5 years.
``(2) Improper use of funds.--An entity that fails to use
amounts received under a grant under this section as provided
for in subsection (c) shall, at the discretion of the
Secretary, be required to remit to the Federal Government not
less than 80 percent of the amounts received under the grant.
``(g) Reports.--
``(1) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct an
evaluation of the results of the activities carried out under
grants under this section.
``(2) Reports.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress an interim report on the results of the evaluation
conducted under paragraph (1). Not later than 6 months after
the end of the program under this section, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a final report on the results of
such evaluation.
``(h) Study.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to
Congress concerning activities to increase participation in
the nurse educator program under the section.
``(2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
``(A) An examination of the capacity of nursing schools to
meet workforce needs on a nationwide basis.
``(B) An analysis and discussion of sustainability options
for continuing programs beyond the initial funding period.
``(C) An examination and understanding of the doctoral
degree programs that are successful in placing graduates as
faculty in schools of nursing.
``(D) An analysis of program design under this section and
the impact of such design on nurse faculty retention and
workforce shortages.
``(E) An analysis of compensation disparities between
nursing clinical practitioners and nurse faculty and between
higher education nurse faculty and higher education faculty
overall.
``(F) Recommendations to enhance faculty retention and the
nursing workforce.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--For the costs of carrying out this
section (except the costs described in paragraph (2), there
are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year
2008, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and $3,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012.
``(2) Administrative costs.--For the costs of administering
this section, including the costs of evaluating the results
of grants and submitting reports to the Congress, there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.

SEC. 102. GERIATRIC ACADEMIC CAREER AWARDS FOR NURSES.

Part I of title VIII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 298 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

[[Page S7747]]

``SEC. 856. GERIATRIC FACULTY FELLOWSHIPS.

``(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to provide Geriatric Academic Career
Awards to eligible individuals to promote the career
development of such individuals as geriatric nurse faculty.
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--To be eligible to receive an
Award under subsection (a), an individual shall--
``(1) be a registered nurse with a doctorate degree in
nursing;
``(2)(A) have completed an approved advanced education
nursing program in geriatric nursing or geropsychiatric
nursing; or
``(B) have a State or professional nursing certification in
geriatric nursing or geropsychiatric nursing; and
``(3) have a faculty appointment at an accredited school of
nursing, school of public health, or school of medicine.
``(c) Application.--An eligible individual desiring to
receive an Award under this section shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
which shall include an assurance that the individual will
meet the service requirement described in subsection (d).
``(d) Service Requirement.--An individual who receives an
Award under this section shall provide training in clinical
geriatrics, including the training of interdisciplinary teams
of health care professionals. The provision of such training
shall constitute at least 50 percent of the obligations of
such individual under the Award.
``(e) Amount and Number.--
``(1) Amount.--The amount of an Award under this section
shall equal $75,000 annually, adjusted for inflation on the
basis of the Consumer Price Index. The Secretary may increase
the amount of an Award by not more than 25 percent, taking
into account the fringe benefits and other research expenses,
at the recipient's institutional rate.
``(2) Number.--The Secretary shall award up to 125 Awards
under this section from 2008 through 2016.
``(3) Regional distribution.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide Awards to
individuals from 5 regions in the United States, of which--
``(i) 2 regions shall be an urban area;
``(ii) 2 regions shall be a rural area; and
``(iii) 1 region shall include a State with--

``(I) a medical school that has a department of geriatrics
that manages rural outreach sites and is capable of managing
patients with multiple chronic conditions, 1 of which is
dementia; and
``(II) a college of nursing that has a required course in
geriatric nursing in the baccalaureate program.

``(B) Geographic diversity.--The Secretary shall ensure
that the 5 regions established under subparagraph (A) are
located in different geographic areas of the United States.
``(f) Term of Award.--The term of an Award made under this
section shall be 5 years.
``(g) Reports.--
``(1) Evaluation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an
evaluation of the results of the activities carried out under
the Awards established under this section.
``(B) Reports to congress.--Not later than 3 years after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress an interim report on the results of
the evaluation conducted under this paragraph. Not later than
180 days after the expiration of the program under this
section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a final
report on the results of such evaluation.
``(2) Content.--The evaluation under paragraph (1) shall
examine--
``(A) the program design under this section and the impact
of the design on nurse faculty retention; and
``(B) options for continuing the program beyond fiscal year
2016.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--To fund Awards under subsection (e),
there are authorized to be appropriated $1,875,000 for each
of fiscal years 2008 through 2016.
``(2) Administrative costs.--To carry out this section
(except to fund Awards under subsection (e)), there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2016.
``(3) Separation of funds.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) are held
in a separate account from the amounts appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (2).''.

TITLE II--DISTANCE EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM AND OTHER PROVISIONS TO
INCREASE THE NURSING AND PHYSICAL THERAPY WORKFORCE

SEC. 201. INCREASING THE DOMESTIC SUPPLY OF NURSES AND
PHYSICAL THERAPISTS.

(a) Establishment of Nurse and Physical Therapists Distance
Education Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), in
conjunction with the Secretary of Education, shall establish
a Nurse and Physical Therapist Distance Education Pilot
Program through which grants may be awarded for the conduct
of activities to increase accessibility to nursing and
physical therapy education.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Nurse and Physical
Therapist Distance Education Pilot Program established under
paragraph (1) shall be to increase accessibility to nursing
and physical therapy education to--
(A) provide assistance to individuals in rural areas who
want to study nursing or physical therapy to enable such
individuals to receive appropriate nursing education and
physical therapy education;
(B) promote the study of nursing and physical therapy at
all educational levels;
(C) establish additional slots for nursing and physical
therapy students at existing accredited schools of nursing
and physical therapy education programs; and
(D) establish new nursing and physical therapy education
programs at institutions of higher education.
(3) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
the Pilot Program under paragraph (1), an entity shall submit
to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(b) Increasing the Domestic Supply of Nurses and Physical
Therapists.--
(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the
Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of Education,
shall--
(A) submit to Congress a report concerning the country of
origin or professional school of origin of newly licensed
nurses and physical therapists in each State, that shall
include--
(i) for the most recent 3-year period for which data is
available--

(I) separate data relating to teachers at institutions of
higher education for each related occupation who have been
teaching for not more than 5 years; and
(II) separate data relating to all teachers at institutions
of higher education for each related occupation regardless of
length of service;

(ii) for the most recent 3-year period for which data is
available, separate data for each related occupation and for
each State;
(iii) a separate identification of those individuals
receiving their initial professional license and those
individuals licensed by endorsement from another State;
(iv) with respect to those individuals receiving their
initial professional license in each year, a description of
the number of individuals who received their professional
education in the United States and the number of individuals
who received such education outside the United States; and
(v) to the extent practicable, a description, by State of
residence and country of education, of the number of nurses
and physical therapists who were educated in any of the 5
countries (other than the United States) from which the most
nurses and physical therapists arrived;
(B) in consultation with the Department of Labor, enter
into a contract with the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences for the conduct of a study and
submission of a report that includes--
(i) a description of how the United States can balance
health, education, labor, and immigration policies to meet
the respective policy goals and ensure an adequate and well-
trained nursing and physical therapy workforce;
(ii) a description of the barriers to increasing the supply
of nursing and physical therapy faculty, domestically trained
nurses, and domestically trained physical therapists;
(iii) recommendations of strategies to be utilized by
Federal and State governments that would be effective in
removing the barriers described in clause (ii), including
strategies that address barriers to advancement to become
registered nurses for other health care workers, such as home
health aides and nurses assistants;
(iv) recommendations for amendments to Federal laws that
would increase the supply of nursing faculty, domestically
trained nurses, and domestically trained physical therapists;
(v) recommendations for Federal grants, loans, and other
incentives that would provide increases in nurse and physical
therapist educators and training facilities, and other
measures to increase the domestic education of new nurses and
physical therapists;
(vi) an identification of the effects of nurse and physical
therapist emigration on the health care systems in their
countries of origin; and
(vii) recommendations for amendments to Federal law that
would minimize the effects of health care shortages in the
countries of origin from which immigrant nurses arrived; and
(C) collaborate with the heads of other Federal agencies,
as appropriate, in working with ministers of health or other
appropriate officials of the 5 countries from which the most
nurses and physical therapists arrived into the United
States, to--
(i) address health worker shortages caused by emigration;
and
(ii) ensure that there is sufficient human resource
planning or other technical assistance needed to reduce
further health worker shortages in such countries.
(2) Access to data.--The Secretary shall grant the
Institute of Medicine access to the data described under
paragraph (1)(A), as such data becomes available to the
Secretary for use by the Institute in carrying out the
activities under paragraph (1)(B).
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,400,000 to carry out paragraph (1)(B).

[[Page S7748]]

______

By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 1630. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
certain tax-exempt financing of electric transmission facilities from
the private business use test; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to
address the increasing need for electric power transmission in our
country.
The Nation's network of transmission lines is the super-highway of
the electric utility industry and the backbone of the electric grid. It
serves as the means of moving large amounts of electricity continuously
from powerplants to substations where it is distributed to homes and
businesses.
A vibrant transmission system helps prevent reliability problems such
as blackouts which have wreaked havoc in California, the Northeast, and
the Midwest in the last 5 years. It enables regions rich in energy
resources like wind, coal, natural gas, and hydropower, to export
energy to power-starved regions of the country. It also serves as the
engine of our Nation's economic well-being.
It has been widely acknowledged by Government and industry experts
that investment in the transmission system has tapered off
significantly and more investment is needed. Planning for the Nation's
future electricity needs is a key consideration as adding transmission
can take many years, even in the most streamlined process. Decisions on
system enhancements needed in the next decade must be made today. As
with other components of utility infrastructure, siting and building
transmission lines is both difficult and very expensive, often costing
much more than $1 million per mile.
Over the last two decades, transmission investment has decreased by
$115 million a year, dropping from $5 billion annually in 1975 to $2
billion in 2000. The electric transmission line grid capacity has not
been upgraded to meet growth demands, particularly in the rapidly
growing West. In 2001, the estimated cost for infrastructure renewal
was $1.3 trillion over a 5-year period. Today, that cost has risen to
over $2 trillion.
Other investment barriers include lack of regional integrated
planning and difficulty in siting new transmission lines. The process
can involve acquiring land easements from property owners, and creating
a cleared corridor, 70 to 100 feet wide and often many miles long. On
top of all this is the uncertainty regarding investment risks and
returns.
Adding large transmission lines also requires State regulatory
approval, which involves significant permitting, research and modeling
data, environmental information, cost comparisons, analyses of various
options, discussions of scenarios and criteria used in evaluation, and
other information.
Lack of new transmission directly affects the price of retail
electricity as a decrease in available transmission lines leads to more
limited access to electric generation plants. Any addition of
powerplants, including nuclear facilities and renewables such as wind,
would also require new transmission lines and facilities.
In short our Nation's economy and population are still growing, and
so too are its power needs, but without new transmission, access to new
power generation is static, which will in turn lead to rising retail
and industrial power costs.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included several important provisions
to encourage transmission investment. I believe there is more that we
can do to accelerate the pace of investment in transmission
infrastructure and to lower the cost of those investments.
My State of Idaho and several others have created State
infrastructure authorities to finance and promote needed transmission
investments. The creation of these State authorities is a new and
innovative development that could be the appropriate catalyst for this
needed investment. However, the full potential of these State
authorities will not be realized under existing law.
As instrumentalities of the State, these authorities can issue tax-
exempt bonds to finance transmission projects. But under current law,
only a very limited number of industry participants such as other
governmental entities, can use these facilities built with tax-exempt
bonds. Clearly, we need a system in which new transmission facilities,
regardless of the source of financing, are available for use by
industry participants.
The legislation I am introducing today amends section 141 of the
Internal Revenue Code to modify the so-called private use restrictions
on tax-exempt financing of transmission facilities. Under this
legislation, any issuer of tax-exempt bonds to finance transmission
facilities would continue to be required to own the facilities.
However, the operation or use of those facilities by a nongovernmental
private party would not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the bonds.
As an example from my State, the Idaho Energy Resources Authority could
issue tax-exempt bonds to finance a transmission line and all parties,
private utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities,
independent power producers, could move power across that facility.
Thus, all segments of the industry benefit from new, low-cost
investment in transmission. The basic requirement of section 141 that
tax-exempt financed facilities serve a general public purpose and are
owned by an eligible issuer is retained. And our whole Nation benefits
from a transmission system that is more robust, reliable and cost
effective.
My legislation sunsets in 5 years. This will provide Congress an
opportunity to review the effectiveness and implications of this change
in the code.
In addition to support for this proposal from various parties in
Idaho, this concept has been endorsed by the Western Governors
Association.
It is my hope that this commonsense proposal can be quickly enacted
and that lower cost investments in the Nation's transmission grid can
be made.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 1631. A bill to establish an emergency fuel assistance grant
program for small businesses during energy emergencies; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last month, Americans emptied their wallets
at the pump, paying record prices that reached $3.22 a gallon according
to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. This
price represented a 28-percent increase over a period of just 2 months,
and 52-percent increase since the end of January. Rising prices
underscore the increased attention that small business owners are
paying to this issue. According to a survey conducted by the National
Small Business Association, NSBA, 62 percent of small businesses use
vehicles for delivery or customer transportation, and a majority of
those who use vehicles travel more than 50 mile a day.
According to the Energy Information Administration's June 12 update
to the ``Short Term Energy Outlook,'' gas prices are expected to
average $3.05 through the 2007 summer months, an increase of 21-cents
over last summer's average price. Meanwhile, small businesses that
operate close to the margin and that rely on vehicles every day to
remain competitive are struggling to keep up.
These are the same businesses coping with considerable increases in
the cost of providing their employees health care, the same burgeoning
entrepreneurs that we count on to create roughly two-thirds of the new
jobs in this country. These businesses can no longer be expected to
shoulder a burden created by a Government that has been reluctant to
shift its priorities from serving the same old special interests.
The good news is that right now, the Senate is debating legislation
that would put the country on a clear path towards energy independence.
In a single month, we could rewrite the shameful story of
procrastination, manipulation and, most of all, failed leadership that
has defined our energy policy for 30 years.
Democrats in the Senate are working to develop a comprehensive energy
policy that will make America safer and will stabilize and lower fuel
costs for small businesses and all Americans. But in order to
effectively address energy security, the final legislation must include
three components: 1. a major increase in the efficiency of all sources
and uses of energy, from pickup trucks to fluorescent light bulbs; 2.
dramatic incentives for all renewable

[[Page S7749]]

energy sources, including the requirement that at least 20 percent of
our energy come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2020; and
3. a comprehensive plan to get clean coal technologies and carbon
sequestration off the drawing board and under construction.
These are the first steps Congress must take to address the long term
security and stability of this country's fuel supply. But there are
other steps we can take in the short term to make sure our small
businesses are protected against dramatic interruptions in fuel.
Today, I am introducing legislation that creates an emergency fuel
assistance program for small businesses in the event of a severe fuel
interruption. Under this program, small businesses and farms that rely
on fuel as a key operating cost would be eligible to receive grants to
help them stay afloat during periods of extraordinarily high gas
prices. This program could go a long way toward helping businesses
operating close to the margin deal with costs that are beyond their
control.
Specifically, the Small Business Emergency Fuel Assistance Act of
2007 would create a program within the Economic Development Agency at
the Department of Commerce to assist small businesses through State
grants during declarations of fuel emergency. The program is triggered
by a Presidential declaration of fuel emergency, and would authorize
the Secretary of Commerce to give grants to States to provide
assistance to fuel-dependent small businesses. Eligibility for these
grants is restricted to businesses with fewer than 50 employees or less
than $5 million in annual gross receipts. Furthermore, to ensure that
these businesses are also contributing to America's energy conservation
efforts, eligibility would be contingent upon a business having a plan
to become more energy efficient. The program would be authorized at
$100 million per year, for 5 years.
For too long, we have asked Americans to put up with an energy supply
that is unstable and flat out dangerous. The path to energy security, a
path that is being cut in the Senate as we speak, will lead to
stability and lower prices at the pump. In the meantime, this is a
commonsense policy to aid our small business and small farm owners in
the short term, so that they can continue to do what they do best, grow
the American economy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1631

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Emergency
Fuel Assistance Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY FUEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

There is established within the Economic Development
Administration of the Department of Commerce, an emergency
assistance program for small businesses and small farms
dependent on fuel.

SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION OF ENERGY EMERGENCY.

(a) In General.--If the President determines that the
health, safety, welfare, or economic well-being of the
citizens of the United States is at risk because of a
shortage or imminent shortage of adequate supplies of crude
oil, gasoline or petroleum distillates due to a disruption in
the national distribution system for crude oil, gasoline or
petroleum distillates (including such a shortage related to a
major disaster (as defined in section 102(2) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(2))), or significant pricing anomalies in
national energy markets for crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum
distillates, the President may declare that a Federal energy
emergency exists.
(b) Scope and Duration.--The emergency declaration declared
pursuant to subsection (a) shall specify--
(1) the period, not to exceed 30 days, for which the
declaration applies;
(2) the circumstance or condition necessitating the
declaration; and
(3) the area or region to which it applies which may not be
limited to a single State; and
(4) the product or products to which it applies.
(c) Extensions.--The President may--
(1) extend a declaration under subsection (a) for a period
of not more than 30 days;
(2) extend such a declaration more than once; and
(3) discontinue such a declaration before its expiration.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

(a) In General.--During any energy emergency declared by
the President under section 3, the Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to award grants to States under a declaration of
fuel supply interruption in accordance with this Act.
(b) Allocation Formula.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary shall award grants to States, in accordance with an
allocation formula established by the Secretary, that is
based on the pro rata share of each State of the total need
among all States, as applicable, for emergency assistance for
fuel interruption, as determined on the basis of--
(1) the number and percentage of qualifying small
businesses and small farms operating within a State;
(2) the increase in price of fuel in a State; and
(3) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(c) State Allocation Plan.--Each State shall establish,
after giving notice to the public, an opportunity for public
comment, and consideration of public comments received, an
allocation plan for the distribution of financial assistance
under this section, which shall be submitted to the Secretary
and shall be made available to the public by the State, and
shall include--
(1) application requirements for qualifying small
businesses and small farms seeking to receive financial
assistance under this section, including a requirement that
each application include--
(A) demonstration of need for assistance under this
section;
(B) a plan to decrease the total commercial energy usage of
the small business through energy efficiency measures, such
as those promoted through the Energy Star Program; and
(C) if a small business or small farm has previously
received assistance under this section, evidence that the
small business or small farm has implemented the plan
previously documented under subparagraph (B); and
(2) factors for selecting among small businesses and small
farms that meet the application requirements, with preference
given to small businesses and small farms based on the
percentage of operating costs expended on fuel.

SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY.

A small business or small farm is eligible for a grant
under this Act if--
(a) the average gross receipts of the small business or
small farm for the 3 preceding taxable years does not exceed
$5,000,000; or
(b) the small business or small farm employed an average of
more than 1 and fewer than 50 qualified employees on business
days during the preceding taxable year.

SEC. 6. DEFINED TERM.

In this Act, the term ``aggregate gross assets'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1202(d)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Commerce $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2012 to carry out this Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1632. A bill to ensure that vessels of the United States conveyed
to eligible recipients for educational, cultural, historical,
charitable, recreational, or other public purposes are maintained and
utilized for the purposes for which they were conveyed; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Vessel
Conveyance Act, a bill which would prevent inappropriate transfers of
surplus United States vessels to nongovernmental organizations.
It has recently come to my attention that two decommissioned U.S.
Coast Guard ships that had been conveyed in legislation to a certain
charitable organization are no longer being used for the purpose
explicitly stated by law. In fact, the ships are no longer in the
organization's possession. Unaware of the costs affiliated with
maintenance of the ships, the recipient found itself unable to afford
the upkeep. Against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, the
charity sold first one, and then the second ship, and pocketed the
proceeds, which totaled $415,000.
Though the U.S. General Services Administration has a process in
place for disposal of surplus vessels, I understand the value of
dedicated vessel conveyances under certain circumstances. But we must
recognize that these assets are the property of the American people,
and they represent a significant investment of public funds. When
Congress acts to convey such valuable items to a private entity, it
also conveys the responsibility to use the vessel for a specific
purpose. In cases where that responsibility has not been carried out,
we must be able to seek recourse, and this bill would provide that
tool.

[[Page S7750]]

Specifically, this legislation would expressly prohibit the recipient
of a conveyed vessel from either selling it, or using it for commercial
purposes. It would require the Administrator of the GSA to monitor
conveyed vessels the same way he monitors ships dispersed under the
standard GSA process to ensure that they are being used appropriately,
and it gives her the power to reclaim the ship if she determines that
those conditions have been violated. The bill would also eliminate the
possibility of transfer to an organization lacking sufficient financial
stability to maintain a given vessel. Finally, it includes civil
enforcement provisions making recipients liable for fines of up to
$10,000 per day that they are in violation of their conveyance
agreement.
On the rare occasions when Congress determines that a certain asset
is uniquely suited to assist a worthy and capable organization, I do
not oppose a legislative conveyance. But I will not allow any
organization to fleece the American taxpayers by biting the hand that
has provided such a generous gift. I am pleased to introduce this bill
today, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1632

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 ``Vessel Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF UNITED STATES VESSELS FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--The conveyance of a United States
Government vessel to an eligible entity for use as an
educational, cultural, historical, charitable, or
recreational or other public purpose shall be made subject to
any conditions, including the reservation of such rights on
behalf of the United States, as the Secretary considers
necessary to ensure that the vessel will be maintained and
used in accordance with the purposes for which it was
conveyed, including conditions necessary to ensure that
unless approved by the Secretary--
(1) the eligible entity to which the vessel is conveyed may
not sell, convey, assign, exchange, or encumber the vessel,
any part thereof, or any associated historic artifact
conveyed to the eligible entity in conjunction with the
vessel; and
(2) the eligible entity to which the vessel is conveyed may
not conduct any commercial activities at the vessel, any part
thereof, or in connection with any associated historic
artifact conveyed to the eligible entity in conjunction with
the vessel, in any manner.
(b) Reversion.--In addition to any term or condition
established pursuant to this section, the conveyance of a
United States Government vessel shall include a condition
that the vessel, or any associated historic artifact conveyed
to the eligible entity in conjunction with the vessel, at the
option of the Secretary, shall revert to the United States
and be placed under the administrative control of the
Administrator if, without approval of the Secretary--
(1) the vessel, any part thereof, or any associated
historic artifact ceases to be available for the educational,
cultural, historical, charitable, or recreational or other
public purpose for which it was conveyed under reasonable
conditions which shall be set forth in the eligible entity's
application;
(2) the vessel or any part thereof ceases to be maintained
in a manner consistent with the commitments made by the
eligible entity to which it was conveyed;
(3) the eligible entity to which the vessel is conveyed,
sells, conveys, assigns, exchanges, or encumbers the vessel,
any part thereof, or any associated historic artifact; or
(4) the eligible entity to which the vessel is conveyed,
conducts any commercial activities at the vessel, any part
thereof, or in conjunction with any associated historic
artifact.
(c) Agreement Required.--Except as may be otherwise
explicitly provided by statute, a United States Government
vessel may not be conveyed to an entity unless that entity
agrees to comply with any terms or conditions imposed on the
conveyance under this section.
(d) Records and Monitoring.--
(1) Compilation and transfer.--The Secretary shall provide
a written or electronic record for each vessel conveyed
pursuant to the Secretary's authority, including the vessel
registration, the application for conveyance, the terms and
conditions of conveyance, and any other documents associated
with the conveyance, and any post-conveyance correspondence
or other documentation, to the Administrator.
(2) Monitoring.--For a period not less than 5 years after
the date of conveyance the Administrator shall monitor the
eligible entity's use of the vessel conveyed to ensure that
the vessel is being used in accordance with the purpose for
which it was conveyed. The Administrator shall create a
written or electronic record of such monitoring activities
and their findings.
(3) Maintenance.--The Administrator shall maintain vessel
conveyance records provided under paragraph (1), and
monitoring records created under paragraph (2), on each
vessel conveyed until such time as the vessel is destroyed,
scuttled, recycled, or otherwise disposed of. The
Administrator may make the records available to the public.
(e) Cost Estimates.--The Secretary may provide an estimate
to an eligible entity of the cost of maintaining and
operating any vessel to be conveyed to that entity.
(f) Guidance.--The Secretary may issue guidance concerning
the types and extent of commercial activities, including the
sale of goods or services incidental to, and consistent with,
the purposes for which a vessel was conveyed, that are
approved by the Secretary for purposes of subsections (a)(2)
and (b)(4) of this section.

SEC. 3. WORKING GROUP ON CONVEYANCE OF UNITED STATES VESSELS.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Transportation shall convene a working
group, composed of representatives from the Maritime
Administration, the Coast Guard, and the United States Navy
to review and to make recommendations on a common set of
conditions for the conveyance of vessels of the United States
to eligible entities (as defined in section 2(d)(2)). The
Secretary may request the participation of senior
representatives of any other Federal department or agency, as
appropriate.

SEC. 4. CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF CONVEYANCE CONDITIONS.

(a) Civil Administrative Penalties.--
(1) Any eligible entity found by the Secretary, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with
section 554 of title 5, United States Code, to have failed to
comply with the terms and conditions under which a vessel was
conveyed to it shall be liable to the United States for a
civil penalty. The amount of the civil penalty under this
paragraph shall not exceed $10,000 for each violation. Each
day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate
violation.
(2) Compromise or other action by the secretary.--The
Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without
conditions, any civil administrative penalty imposed under
this section that has not been referred to the Attorney
General for further enforcement action.
(b) Hearing.--For the purposes of conducting any
investigation or hearing under this section, the Secretary
may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and
documents, and may administer oaths. Witnesses summoned shall
be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to witnesses
in the courts of the United States. In case of contempt or
refusal to obey a subpoena served upon any person pursuant to
this subsection, the district court of the United States for
any district in which such person is found, resides, or
transacts business, upon application by the United States and
after notice to such person, shall have jurisdiction to issue
an order requiring such person to appear and give testimony
before the Secretary or to appear and produce documents
before the Secretary, or both, and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by such court as a
contempt thereof. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
grant jurisdiction to a district court to entertain an
application for an order to enforce a subpoena issued by the
Secretary of Commerce to the Federal Government or any entity
thereof.
(c) Jurisdiction.--The United States district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of any action under this section
arising out of or in connection with the operation,
maintenance, or disposition of a conveyed vessel, and
proceedings with respect to any such action may be instituted
in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or
may be found. For the purpose of this section, American Samoa
shall be included within the judicial district of the
District Court of the United States for the District of
Hawaii.
(d) Collection.--If an eligible entity fails to pay an
assessment of a civil penalty after it has become a final and
unappealable order, or after the appropriate court has
entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the matter
may be referred to the Attorney General, who may recover the
amount (plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the
date of the final order). In such action the validity,
amount, and appropriateness of the final order imposing the
civil penalty shall not be subject to review. Any eligible
entity that fails to pay, on a timely basis, the amount of an
assessment of a civil penalty shall be required to pay, in
addition to such amount and interest, attorney's fees and
costs for collection proceedings and a quarterly nonpayment
penalty for each quarter during which such failure to pay
persists. Such nonpayment penalty shall be in an amount equal
to 20 percent of the aggregate amount of such the entity's
penalties and nonpayment penalties which are unpaid as of the
beginning of such quarter.
(e) Nationwide Service of Process.--In any action by the
United States under this Act, process may be served in any
district where the defendant is found, resides, transacts
business or has appointed an agent for the service of
process, and for civil cases may also be served in a place
not within the United States in accordance with Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[[Page S7751]]

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
State or local government, nonprofit corporation, educational
agency, community development organization, or other entity
that agrees to comply with the conditions established under
this section.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the department or agency on whose authority a vessel is
conveyed to an eligible entity.
(4) United states government vessel.--The term ``United
States government vessel'' means a vessel owned by the United
States Government.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Brown, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Chambliss, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coleman,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kohl, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott,
Mr. Lugar, Mr. Martinez, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Ms.
Mikulski, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Voinovich,
Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden:)
S.J. Res. 16. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this year, while the Senate was
resuming its business in a new Congress, two dozen families on the
other side of the world were fleeing their homes. Ninety-four men and
women, some young some old, grabbed whatever belongings they could
carry and headed north along the eastern Burmese border to escape the
torment of a brutal regime.
Human rights officials tell us what happened next. Late last month,
these families were forced to move again. And as I stand here today,
they are cramped inside the homes of other refugees. We are looking
forward to summer vacations. They are looking ahead at the bitter work
of building new homes in the rain, with their hands, in a remote corner
of a stark, isolated wasteland the world seems to have forgotten.
Mr. President, I am here to report that the United States has not
forgotten. We will continue to shine a light on the oppressive and
illegitimate military regime that drove these families from their
homes. And I will rise every year, as I do today, with my good friend
the senior Senator from California, to reintroduce a bill that extends
for another year a ban on imports from Burma.
Republicans and Democrats work together proudly on some things in the
Senate. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act is one of them. I am
pleased to say that even though the control of Congress has changed,
its commitment to the people of Burma has not. Senator Feinstein and I
are joined this year by 57 cosponsors, more than last year and the year
before that. On the Republican side, for example, the people of Burma
have no better friend than the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
Support for the people of Burma is growing on Capitol Hill. Senator
Feinstein and the senior Senator from Texas recently formed the Women's
Caucus on Burma. The First Lady attended its first meeting last month,
adding her voice to a growing chorus of those opposed to the Burmese
regime. The voices are not just coming from Washington. But the words
and actions of Washington are beginning to cause others to take note of
this dire situation.
Last year, the United Nations Security Council agreed for the first
time to put Burma on its agenda. In January, a U.N. Security Council
resolution that enjoyed the support of a majority of the Council's
member nations was unfortunately blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes.
We remain encouraged by the fact that nine countries agreed to hold the
regime accountable. We urge Russia and China to reconsider their
stance.
We know others are beginning to notice Burma because 3 years ago the
Association of Southeast Asian nations called the sufferings in Burma
``an internal matter.'' Yet today ASEAN recognizes that the ``Burma
problem'' is its problem, too.
Southeast Asian leaders have spoken out more frequently and
forcefully over the last year in calling for democratic reforms. They
join the United States and other freedom-loving people who have
demanded for years that the military thugs who control Burma loosen
their grip.
We know others are starting taking notice because earlier this year
the United Nations Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon, urged the release of
Burma's roughly 1,300 political prisoners, including the world's only
imprisoned Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.
And we know others are starting to take notice because that effort
was followed by a letter signed by 59 former heads of state.
The Burmese military regime, the State Peace and Development Council,
is on notice: the wider international community, including its
neighbors, are increasingly aware and increasingly outraged by its
behavior.
Mr. President, The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior. And
the changes we seek, in partnership with the Burmese people, are these:
concrete, irreversible steps toward reconciliation and democratization
that include the full, unfettered participation of the National League
for Democracy and ethnic minorities; ending attacks on ethnic
minorities; and the immediate, unconditional release of all prisoners
of conscience, including Suu Kyi. The regime also needs to know that a
sham constitutional process and token prisoner releases will not be
regarded by anyone as progress toward these goals.
The argument against sanctions--that they are most harmful to those
they are meant to help--is well known. But it does not apply to Burma.
It has long been the policy of the NLD, the winner of Burma's last
democratic election, to seek reform through sanctions against the
current regime.
And for good reason. Burma's military junta has maintained an iron
grip on every aspect of the country's economy. Its leaders flaunt and
squander whatever wealth they can squeeze from Burmese workers, leaving
the country's economy in ruins--but leaving enough aside for its
current leader, GEN Than Shwe, to impulsively relocate the Burmese
capital from Rangoon at a cost of millions, or to throw a wedding for
his daughter that is reported to have cost millions more.
The military junta has complete control over the flow of goods and
money in and out of Burma. And every dollar that is spent on Burmese
products is money spent on financing the regime. It is the SPDC, not
the allies of the Burmese people, who are responsible for Burma's
economic woes.
As diplomatic pressure intensifies, as the rest of the international
community undertakes the kind of change we have seen in ASEAN, the
supporters of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act are confident this
regime will be forced to change its ways.
The situation is urgent. Burma's military regime has become
increasingly reckless. And the humanitarian situation is grave and
deteriorating: the junta has intensified its abuse of minority groups
through rape and forced labor. It continues to harass and detain a new
generation of peaceful activists, activists like a young woman named Su
Su Nway, who has inspired the world with her resolute defiance of
forced labor practices.
In standing up to the Burmese regime, Su Su Nway drew inspiration
from Suu Kyi. Now she is inspiring another generation of Burmese
activists who are willing to defend their rights and, despite the
danger to themselves, refuse to remain silent in the face of the abuses
they see.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Su Su Nway was asked by a radio
reporter last year whether she feared imprisonment. Her simple but
eloquent response should give us hope in the determination of this new
generation of

[[Page S7752]]

activists. ``I will stand for the truth,'' she said.
The crimes of the Burmese government are well documented. Here is
what we know: nearly 70,000 children have been taken from their homes
and forcibly conscripted--that's more children than live in all of
Lexington, the second-largest city in my State.
Forced labor is a daily threat in the southeastern Karen State, where
military personnel force villagers to build roads and shelters, without
food or pay, and to leave their homes and farms to do the work. Some
are used as human shields against democratic insurgents.
These are the lucky ones. Others are forced to walk ahead of military
convoys to act as human minesweepers. If there is a landmine, they blow
up. It is from diabolical thugs like these that desperate, exhausted
families are fleeing their homes.
Drugs and disease are spreading across Burma's borders along with its
people, and it is no secret why. According to the World Health
Organization, Burma is home to one of the worst AIDS epidemics in
Southeast Asia. Yet it spent just $137,000 last year on the care and
treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, even as it spends countless millions
on Chinese and Russian tanks and jets.
You can tell a lot about a man from the company he keeps. We could
say the same about governments. In late April, Burma established
diplomatic relations with the government of North Korea for the first
time in two decades. It was reported last month that a North Korean
cargo ship docked in Burma. This is a disturbing development to those
of us on the outside looking in. It can only be discouraging to
democratic reformers inside Burma.
News of North Korea's presence on the Burmese coast came shortly
after another troubling piece of news. In early April, Burma's second
in command led a delegation on the nation's first-ever high-level trip
to Russia. And last month, the Burmese government announced an
agreement with Russia to build a nuclear research reactor in Burma.
This should send a chill up the spine of every one of us. Even
peaceful nations that lack the proper legal and regulatory framework
should not be allowed to have a nuclear program. Those that torture and
abuse their own people and consort with rogue regimes such as North
Korea should not be allowed to even contemplate it.
And this is how this rogue regime has held onto its power: Internal
efforts at reform are violently stamped out, as they were when
thousands of peaceful prodemocracy protesters were slaughtered in 1988.
In response to a national election in 1990, in which Suu Kyi's party,
the NLD, won 80 percent of the seats in a new parliament, the regime
simply threw out the results.
By refusing to accept imports from a regime that terrorizes people
like Suu Kyi, Su Su Nway, and so many others, we are standing up and
facing these tyrants at our own borders and turning them back--until
they release these prisoners and begin the process of democratization
and reconciliation. Every dollar we keep out of the hands of this junta
is one less dollar it can use to fund the conscription of children, its
nuclear program, and the war it has waged against its own people for
nearly two decades.
Later this month, Suu Kyi will celebrate her 62nd birthday, alone. I
urge my colleagues to stand with her as that day approaches. By denying
support for those who imprison her, we will pressure them to change.
There are fresh signs that these sanctions have begun to do their
work. But we need to keep the pressure on. So I ask my colleagues to
join me in supporting the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 16

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in
section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McConnell
and 54 of our colleagues to introduce a joint resolution renewing the
ban on all imports from Burma for another year.
Simply put, the ruling State Peace and Development Council--SPDC--has
not taken the necessary actions to warrant a lifting of the sanctions
at this time.
Indeed, Burma represents one of the most critical human rights
situations in the world today.
Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the
National League for Democracy, is confined to her home by orders of the
military junta.
She has spent the better part of the past 17 years imprisoned or
under house arrest and on May 25, 2003 her sentence was extended for
another year.
There is no indication that the regime will free her anytime soon.
This is simply unacceptable. She should be released immediately and
unconditionally and the regime should begin real and substantive
national reconciliation talks with Suu Kyi's National League for
Democracy--NLD.
The NLD, the winning party in Burma's last free elections in 1990
with 82 percent of the seats in parliament, is forbidden from
participating in public life. For over 20 years, the military junta has
been unwilling to take meaningful steps towards political
reconciliation.
And let us not forget: 4 years ago government sponsored thugs
attempted to assassinate Suu Kyi and other members of the National
League for Democracy by attacking her motorcade in northern Burma.
Indeed, the human rights situation in Burma is deplorable and demands
a clear, unified response from the international community: 1,300
political prisoners are still in jail; according to the U.N. Special
Rapporteur, over 3,000 villages have been destroyed by the military
junta; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; over 500,000
people are internally displaced in Burma today, and over 1 million
people have fled Burma over the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's
neighbors. Also, the practice of rape as a form of repression has been
sanctioned by the Burmese military; use of forced labor is widespread;
human trafficking is rampant; Burma is the world's second-largest opium
producer after Afghanistan and increasingly a source of trafficking of
synthetic narcotics.
Some may argue that while the human rights situation is indeed
deplorable, sanctions are not the proper solution and we should try a
new course.
I agree that sanctions are not a panacea for every foreign policy
concern. I am disappointed that Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house
arrest and we still have not realized our goal of a free and democratic
Burma.
Yet now is not the time to lift the import ban on Burma. First, the
military junta has not fulfilled any of the obligations of the
``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' that would allow a
lifting of the ban. It has not made ``substantial and measurable
progress'' towards: ending violations of internationally recognized
human rights; releasing all political prisoners; allowing freedom of
speech and press; allowing freedom of association; permitting the
peaceful exercise of religion and; bringing to a conclusion an
agreement between the SPDC and the National League for Democracy and
Burma's ethnic nationalities on the restoration of a democratic
government.
If we were to allow the import ban to expire, we would reward the
military junta for its inaction, its failure to fulfill these basic
obligations, and its continued brutal crackdown on the human rights of
the citizens of Burma.
We simply cannot afford to send that message to those who bravely
stand up to the SPDC and reject their abuses.
I remind my colleagues that we are not voting to enact the import ban
in perpetuity.
We are renewing it for one more year and we will have another
opportunity to review its effectiveness next year.
Second, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to
support the import ban.
They recognize that it is not directed at the people of Burma, but at
the military junta that dominates economic and political activity in
their country and denies them their rights.

[[Page S7753]]

Third, we are seeing progress in the international community in
putting additional pressure on Burma.
In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and Development
Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including
former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav
Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents
Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime
to release Aung San Suu Kyi.
They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for
revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between
the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic
groups.''
The calls for Suu Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's
neighbors.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations--ASEAN--now recognizes
that Burma's actions are not an ``internal matter'' but a significant
threat to peace and stability in the region.
At a meeting of senior diplomats last month, ASEAN made a clear call
for Aung San Suu Kyi's release.
As Philippine foreign under secretary Erlinda Basilio said: ``It's a
consensus that we want to see her early release.''
An editorial in the Jakarta Post recently commented that the regime's
refusal to heed these calls ``shows its complete disregard for the
growing values of ASEAN.'' That is from the Jakarta Post, May 29, 2007.
We are also seeing progress at the United Nations. In January, for
the first time, the United Nations debated a binding, non-punitive
resolution on Burma.
Among other things that resolution called on the military junta:

. . . to take concrete steps to allow full freedom of
expression, association, and movement by unconditionally
releasing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners,
lifting all constraints on all political leaders and
citizens, and allowing the National League for Democracy
(NLD) and other political parties to operate freely.

While nine countries voted in favor of the resolution, I am extremely
disappointed that China and Russia exercised their veto.
A report by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and retired
archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa--``Threat to Peace: A Call for
the U.N. Security Council to Act on Burma''--confirms the need for U.N.
intervention. It details how the situation in Burma fulfills each of
the criteria used for past intervention by the Security Council:
overthrow of an elected government; armed conflicts with ethnic
minorities; widespread human rights violations; outflow of refugees--
over 700,000; and drug production and trafficking and the spread of
HIV/AIDS.
I firmly believe that momentum for United Nations Security Council
action is on our side and I am confident that body will revisit this
resolution again this year.
I am also hopeful that the new United Nations Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon will personally get involved in putting pressure on the
military junta to respect the wishes of the people of Burma and the
international community by releasing Aung San Suu Kyi and restoring
democratic government.
In a letter signed by myself, Senator McConnell and a bipartisan
group of 43 other U.S. Senators we wrote:

We urge you to personally intervene with the regime on a
regular basis to establish concrete benchmarks and timetables
for democratic progress in Burma. We also urge you to hold
the Burmese government accountable for achieving those goals.
The Burmese people deserve more than talk--they deserve
action.

We can demonstrate to the Secretary General that we too are committed
to action by passing this joint resolution promptly.
In conclusion, let me say that I believe the women of the U.S. Senate
have a special obligation to speak out on this issue. Last month we
came together to form the United States Senate Women's Caucus on Burma
and hold our inaugural event with First Lady Laura Bush. I am proud to
cochair that caucus with my friend and colleague from Texas, Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison. Together we expressed our solidarity with Aung
San Suu Kyi and called for her immediate and unconditional release so
that a peaceful transition to a democratic government may begin.
It is my great hope that one day the United States Senate Women's
Caucus on Burma will welcome Aung San Suu Kyi to Washington, DC, as the
woman who led her nation from repression to freedom.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has rightly said, ``As long as [Suu Kyi]
remains under house arrest, not one of us is truly free.''
Today, I urge the State Peace and Development Council to release Aung
San Suu Kyi immediately and unconditionally.
I urge the United Nations Security Council to pass a binding
resolution on Burma.
And I urge the U.S. Senate to pass this joint resolution to renew the
import ban on Burma for another year.

____________________