[Pages S10606-S10627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Casey):
S. 1914. A bill to require a comprehensive nuclear posture review,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins,
Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Casey to
introduce legislation to authorize a comprehensive review of our
nuclear weapons policy and posture.
Before we ramp up funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program as the administration has requested, we should have a clear,
bipartisan consensus on the role nuclear weapons will play in our
national security strategy and the impact they will have on our nuclear
nonproliferation efforts.
The Nuclear Policy and Posture Review Act of 2007 does three things.
First, it authorizes the President to conduct a nuclear policy review
to consider a range of possible roles of nuclear weapons in U.S.
security policy. The administration may reach out to outside experts
and conduct public hearings to get a wide range of views. The policy
review will provide options and recommendations for a nuclear posture
review.
This report is due on September 1, 2009.
Second, following the completion of the nuclear policy review, it
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review
of the nuclear posture of the U.S. to clarify U.S. nuclear deterrence
policy and strategy. This report is due March 1, 2010.

[[Page S10607]]

Finally, it zeros out funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program until the policy review and posture review reports have been
submitted to Congress.
In his testimony on March 29, 2007, before the House Energy & Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, former Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of
Nuclear Threat Initiative, noted that:

On the [Reliable Replacement Warhead] itself, if Congress
gives a green light to this program in our current world
environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by
our allies; exploited by our adversaries; complicate our work
to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons and . . .
make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all
the more difficult.

I could not agree more.
Indeed, I remain deeply concerned about this administration's nuclear
weapons policy.
As a U.S. Senator, I have worked with colleagues in the House and
Senate to stop the re-opening of the nuclear door and the development
of new nuclear weapons.
Together, we have eliminated funding for the Advanced Concepts
Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and the Modern Pit
Facility.
These were consequential victories but the fight is far from over.
For fiscal year 2008, the administration requested $118 million for
the Reliable Replacement Warhead program; $88 million in the National
Nuclear Security administration's budget and $30 million in the
Department of Defense's budget.
These funds would be used for Phase 2A activities: design definition
and cost study.
This would represent approximately a four-fold increase over fiscal
year 2007 funding of $24.7 million.
The House, however, rejected the administration's request and zeroed
out funding for RRW in its fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill. In its report accompanying the
legislation, the House cited the lack of a definitive nuclear weapons
policy review as a key reason for withholding funding for what will be
a costly new nuclear warhead program. It stated:

The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment
defining the objectives of a future nuclear stockpile makes
it impossible to weigh the relative merits of investing
billions of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production
activities when the United States is facing the problem of
having too large a stockpile as a Cold War legacy. Currently,
there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the
large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less
producing additional warheads, or for the DoD requirements
that drive the management of the DOE nuclear weapons complex.

While the Senate bill did not follow suit, it did cut $22 million
from the administration's request, for a total of $66 million, and
restricted activities to Phase 2A.
I believe we can match the House's action and this bill would do just
that.
The administration is clearly getting nervous about the prospects for
funding for RRW.
On Wednesday, the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and State released
a 4-page white paper on nuclear weapons strategy: ``National Security
and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century''. It
affirmed the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and
sought to justify funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
Among other things, it stated that the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program is critical to sustaining long-term confidence in the nuclear
stockpile and will help reduce the stockpile and move us away from
nuclear testing; and any delay to the program will force the U.S. to
maintain a larger stockpile, invest in costly and risky Life Extension
Programs, and increase the likelihood that we will have to resume
nuclear testing.
These arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
Indeed the evidence clearly shows that there is no need to rush
forward with increased funding for RRW. Let us take a close look at the
status of our nuclear weapons arsenal.
Are there currently problems with the safety and reliability of our
nuclear arsenal?
No, for each of the past 11 years the Secretary of Energy and
Secretary of Defense have certified that the nuclear stockpile is safe
and reliable.
Has the Pentagon asked for a new warhead for new missions?
No, there is no new military requirement to replace existing, well-
tested warheads.
What about the plutonium pit, the ``trigger'' of a nuclear weapon? In
past years, the administration requested funding for a Modern Pit
Facility that could build up to 450 pits a year arguing that the pits
in our current stockpile were reaching the end of their life-span.

Is our stockpile at risk due to aging pits?
No, a December 2006 report by the National Laboratories showed that
plutonium pits have a life-span of at least 85 years, and possibly up
to 100 years.
That report validated Congressional action to eliminate funding for
the Modern Pit Facility. I am pleased that the administration listened
and did not request funding for the facility in fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2008.
Are we at risk for resuming nuclear testing?
No, as I have argued our stockpile is safe and secure and will
clearly remain so for the foreseeable future.
If the likelihood of resuming nuclear testing is increasing it is due
to the fact that the administration has, in past years, requested
funding to lower the time to test readiness at the Nevada test site
from 24-36 months to 18 months and, above all, refused to support
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT.
What about costs? I find it interesting that the administration would
cite the costs of successful Life Extension Programs as a reason to
ramp up funding for the RRW.
Has the administration shared with us what it will cost to replace
the warhead on our deployed nuclear arsenal with a new Reliable
Replacement Warhead?
The answer is no. The administration has remained silent about when
the supposed cost savings from RRW will ultimately kick in.
In fact, the development of a new nuclear warhead will likely add
billions of dollars to the American taxpayer's bill at a time when, as
noted above, the stockpile is safe and reliable. As the House Energy
and Water Appropriations report argued:

Under any realistic future U.S. nuclear defense scenario,
the existing legacy stockpile will continue to provide the
nation's nuclear deterrent for well over the next two to
three decades. The effort by the NNSA to apply urgency to
developing a significant production capacity for the RRW
while lacking any urgency to rationalize an oversized complex
appears to mean simply more costs to the American taxpayer.

Before we move any further with this program which would add a new
warhead to the stockpile, we should have a better understanding of the
role nuclear weapons will play in our security policy in a post-Cold
War and post 9/11 world.
If we as a country are going to move away from massive stockpiles of
nuclear weapons and explore more conventional alternatives, does it
make sense to add a new warhead to the stockpile?
If we are committed to strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, what impact
would a Reliable Replacement Warhead have on those efforts?
If the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program
can certify the safety and the reliability of our existing nuclear
stockpile, should we shift resources from RRW to more pressing
concerns?
It is common sense to ask these questions and engage in comprehensive
review and debate about these options before we make the decision on
manufacturing new warheads.
As it stands now, we are addressing this issue backwards and behind
closed doors.
That is, we are rushing to develop a new warhead without an
understanding of the role it will play in our nuclear weapons policy
and national security strategy and without public input that will lead
to a bipartisan policy.
Let us be clear: a rushed, four page white paper is simply not
sufficient to answer these questions and make decisions about
developing new nuclear warheads.
The administration has promised a more detailed report but its haste
to put out this paper suggests that it is more intent on rushing the
development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program than in taking
a sober,

[[Page S10608]]

unbiased look at our nuclear weapons policy and posture.
A lack of a substantive debate and review means we are not paying
sufficient attention to the potential negative consequences of RRW.
Speeding up the development of a new nuclear warhead may send the
wrong message to Iran; North Korea; and other would-be nuclear weapon
states and encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent.
What to us may appear to be a safer, more reliable weapon could
appear to others to be a new weapon with new missions and a violation
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a
report last month acknowledging that a Reliable Replacement Warhead
``could lead to a final selected design that is certifiable without a
nuclear test.''
Yet, the report also concluded that absent a comprehensive review of
nuclear policy and stockpile needs, the purpose and intention of RRW
could be widely misinterpreted abroad.
Pointing out that there has been no high level statement about
nuclear weapons policy since the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, it called
on the administration to develop a bipartisan policy on the future of
nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons policy before moving ahead with
RRW. It stated:

In the absence of a clear nuclear posture, many
interpretations are possible [about U.S. nuclear weapons
policy] and the lack of a national understanding and
consensus on the role of U.S. nuclear weapons puts any new
approach at considerable risk at home and abroad. For
example, an RRW plan that emphasizes the goal of sustaining
the deterrent without nuclear testing could be perceived
quite differently from one that focuses on future flexibility
to develop and deploy nuclear weapons for new military
mission.

It goes on to state:

. . . nuclear weapons are ultimately an instrument of
policy and strategy rather than of war fighting, and only
with the leadership of the president can there be major
changes in that instrument.

Unfortunately we have not seen such leadership from this
administration.
Because it pursued the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and a
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, because it sought to lower the time-
to-test readiness at the Nevada test site from 24-26 months to 18
months, because it sought to build a Modern Pit Facility that could
produce up to 450 pits a year, this administration has lost the
credibility to take a fresh and open look at nuclear weapons policy and
posture.
Only a new administration, free from the constraints of the heated
debates of the past, will have the authority to conduct a comprehensive
review of our nuclear weapons policy and posture.
A bipartisan consensus on this policy is essential. It will let the
world know exactly where we stand on these important issues and help
clear up any confusion about our intentions.
Friend and foe alike will know that regardless of who holds power in
Congress or the White House, the role of nuclear weapons in our
security strategy will not change.
It will strengthen our efforts to convince other states to forego the
development of nuclear weapons and make the world safer from the threat
of nuclear war.
I believe that bipartisan policy is beginning to emerge.
In a January 4, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, ``A World Free
of Nuclear Weapons'', George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger,
and Sam Nunn laid out a compelling vision for a world free of the
threat of nuclear war.
They laid a set of common sense steps the U.S. and other nuclear
weapon states can take to make this happen including: taking nuclear
weapons off high-alert status; substantially reducing the size of
nuclear stockpiles; eliminating short-ranged nuclear weapons; ratifying
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; securing all stocks of weapons,
weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium around the world;
getting control of the uranium enrichment process; stopping production
of fissile material for nuclear weapons globally; resolving regional
confrontations that encourage the development of nuclear weapons.
They conclude:

Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear
weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal
would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative
consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could
have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future
generations. Without that bold vision, the actions will not
be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the
vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.

We should pay close attention to these words.
In conclusion, let me say that there is a big difference between an
RRW program that increases the reliability of the existing stockpile
and one that leads to a resumption of nuclear testing.
Congress should ask the tough questions to ensure that this is not a
back door to new nuclear weapons with new missions and new rounds of
testing.
I firmly believe we should zero out for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead program until the next administration takes a serious look at
our nuclear weapons programs and issues a bipartisan policy on the size
of the future stockpile, testing, and nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration
to craft that sensible, bipartisan nuclear weapons policy that will
make Americans safe and allow us to reclaim a leadership role in the
fight against nuclear proliferation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1914

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 ``Nuclear Policy and Posture
Review Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REVISED NUCLEAR POLICY REVIEW AND NUCLEAR POSTURE
REVIEW.

(a) Nuclear Policy Review.--
(1) In general.--The President shall conduct a nuclear
policy review to consider a range of options on the role of
nuclear weapons in United States security policy. The policy
review shall be coordinated by the National Security Advisor
and shall include the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National
Intelligence, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
(2) Scope of review.--The nuclear policy review conducted
under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) address the role and value of nuclear weapons in the
current global security environment;
(B) set forth short-term and long-term objectives of United
States nuclear weapons policy;
(C) consider the contributions of the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London,
and Moscow July 1, 1968 (commonly referred to as the
``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty''), to United States
national security, and include recommendations for
strengthening the Treaty;
(D) explore the relationship between the nuclear policy of
the United States and nonproliferation and arms control
objectives and international treaty obligations, including
obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty;
(E) determine the role and effectiveness of the Treaty
Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of
Strategic Offensive Arms, signed at Moscow July 31, 1991
(commonly referred to as the ``START I Treaty''), and the
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, done at Moscow
May 24, 2002 (commonly referred to as the ``Moscow Treaty''),
in achieving the national security and nonproliferation goals
of the United States and in implementing United States
military strategy, and describe the elements of a recommended
successor treaty, including verification provisions; and
(F) provide policy guidance and make recommendations for
the nuclear posture review to be conducted under subsection
(b).
(3) Outside input.--The policy review shall include
contributions from outside experts and, to the extent
possible, shall include public meetings to consider a range
of views.
(b) Nuclear Posture Review.--
(1) In general.--Following completion of the nuclear policy
review under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the
United States to clarify United States nuclear deterrence
policy and strategy. The Secretary shall conduct the review
in collaboration with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary
of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the
National Security Advisor.
(2) Elements of review.--The nuclear posture review
conducted under paragraph (1) shall include the following
elements:

[[Page S10609]]

(A) The role of nuclear forces in United States military
strategy, planning, and programming, including the extent to
which conventional forces can assume roles previously assumed
by nuclear forces.
(B) The policy requirements and objectives for the United
States to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear
deterrence posture, in light of the guidance provided by the
nuclear policy review conducted under subsection (a).
(C) The targeting strategy required to implement
effectively the guidance provided by the nuclear policy
review conducted under subsection (a).
(D) The levels and composition of the nuclear delivery
systems that will be required for implementing the United
States national and military strategy, including any plans
for removing, replacing, or modifying existing systems.
(E) The nuclear weapons complex that will be required for
implementing the United States national and military
strategy, including any plans to consolidate, modernize, or
modify the complex.
(F) The active and inactive nuclear weapons stockpile that
will be required for implementing the United States national
and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or
modifying warheads.
(G) An account of the different nuclear postures considered
in the review and the reasoning for the selection of the
nuclear posture.
(c) Reports Required.--
(1) Nuclear policy review.--Not later than September 1,
2009, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the nuclear policy review conducted under
subsection (a).
(2) Nuclear posture review.--Not later than March 1, 2010,
the President shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the nuclear posture review conducted under
subsection (b).
(3) Form.--Each report required under this subsection shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a
classified annex.
(d) Sense of Congress on Use of Nuclear Posture Review.--It
is the sense of Congress that the nuclear policy review
conducted under subsection (a) should be used as the basis
for establishing future strategic arms control objectives and
negotiating positions of the United States.
(e) Restriction on Funding of Reliable Replacement Warhead
Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available for the
Reliable Replacement Warhead Program for fiscal years 2008,
2009, or 2010 until the reports required under subsection (c)
have been submitted to Congress.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Casey):
S. 1918. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to expand the definition of firefighter to include
apprentices and trainees, regardless of age or duty limitations; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the
Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act, a bill designed
to correct a flaw in the current definition of ``firefighter'' under
the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act.
On May 4, 2002, 14-year-old Christopher Kangas was struck by a car
and killed while he was riding his bicycle in Brookhaven, PA. The local
authorities later confirmed that Christopher was out on his bike that
day for an important reason: Chris Kangas was a junior firefighter, and
he was responding to a fire emergency.
Under Pennsylvania law, 14- and 15-year-olds such as Christopher are
permitted to serve as volunteer junior firefighters. While they are not
allowed to operate heavy machinery or enter burning buildings, the law
permits them to fill a number of important support roles, such as
providing first aid. In addition, the junior firefighter program is an
important recruitment tool for fire stations throughout the
Commonwealth. In fact, prior to his death Christopher had received 58
hours of training that would have served him well when he graduated
from the junior program.
It is clear to me that Christopher Kangas was a firefighter killed in
the line of duty. Were it not for his status as a junior firefighter
and his prompt response to a fire alarm, Christopher would still be
alive today. Indeed, the Brookhaven Fire Department, Brookhaven
Borough, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all recognized
Christopher as a fallen public safety officer and provided the
appropriate death benefits to his family.
Yet, while those closest to the tragedy have recognized Christopher
as a fallen firefighter, the Federal Government has not. The U.S.
Department of Justice, DOJ, determined that Christopher Kangas was not
eligible for benefits because he was not acting within a narrow range
of duties at the time of his death that are the measured criteria to be
considered a ``firefighter,'' and therefore, was not a ``public safety
officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. In
order to be eligible for benefits under the Public Safety Officer
Benefits Act, an officer's death must be considered the ``direct and
proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.''
Although the United States Code includes firefighters in the definition
of ``public safety officer'' and specifies a firefighter as ``an
individual serving as an officially-recognized or designated member of
a legally-organized volunteer fire department;'' it offers no
definition of ``line of duty''. DOJ had to defer to an arbitrarily
narrow definition of ``line of duty,'' as described in the Code of
Federal Regulations that restricts activities to the ``suppression of
fires.'' DOJ decided that the only people who qualify as firefighters
are those who play the starring role of operating a hose on a ladder or
entering a burning building. According to this interpretation, those,
such as junior firefighters, who play the essential supporting roles of
directing traffic, performing first aid, or dispatching fire vehicles
do not contribute to the act of suppressing the fire.
Furthermore, Christopher's family has been pursuing this benefit
through our court system. The U.S. Federal Claims Court ruled in favor
of the Kangas family ordering the Department of Justice to pay
$250,000. However, the Department appealed the decision which the
Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit upheld by concluding the Court of
Federal Claims' decision failed to defer to DOJ's interpretation of
``firefighter.''
Any firefighter will tell you that there are many important roles to
play in fighting a fire beyond operating the hoses and ladders.
Firefighting is a team effort, and everyone in the Brookhaven Fire
Department viewed young Christopher as a full member of their team.
As a result of this DOJ determination, Christopher's family cannot
receive a $267,000 Federal line-of-duty benefit. In addition,
Christopher is barred from taking his rightful place on the National
Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD. For a young man who
dreamed of being a firefighter and gave his life rushing to a fire,
keeping him off of the memorial is a grave injustice.
The bill I introduce today will ensure that the Federal Government
will recognize Christopher Kangas and others like him as firefighters.
The bill clarifies that all firefighters will be recognized as such
``regardless of age, status as an apprentice or trainee, or duty
restrictions imposed because of age or status as an apprentice or
trainee.'' The bill applies retroactively back to May 4, 2002, the date
of Christopher Kangas' death.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I
yield the floor.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, by Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 1919. A bill to establish trade enforcement priorities for the
United States, to strengthen the provisions relating to trade remedies,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Hatch to
introduce the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007. This bill will provide the
administration additional tools, resources, and accountability to
enforce international trade agreements abroad and domestic trade remedy
laws here at home.
Over 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote ``The law hath not been
dead, though it hath slept.'' The same could be said of our trade
enforcement laws today.
The administration has many tools at its disposal to enforce
international trade agreements. It can file dispute settlement cases in
the World Trade Organization, WTO. It has Section 301 to fight market
access barriers. It has Special 301 to address intellectual property
violations abroad. It has Section 421 to remedy Chinese import surges
that cause injury here at home.
But having these rules on the books is not enough. We need to enforce
them.

[[Page S10610]]

There is a very real sense among Americans that our trading partners
do not play by the rules. And there is a very real sense that the U.S.
Government is allowing them to get away with it.
That is why I am introducing the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007--to
ensure that the administration has the resources to enforce our
existing trade laws, to provide political accountability when it does
not, and to create new tools that address the enforcement priorities of
American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service suppliers.
This legislation bolsters enforcement of U.S. trade agreements in
three important ways.
First, it requires the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, to dedicate
more time to enforcement. The bill requires USTR to provide an annual
report to Congress identifying the most significant barriers to U.S.
companies abroad and to take enforcement action to resolve them. It
also makes trade enforcement more accountable to Congress. The bill
allows the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means
Committee to require USTR to identify a specific barrier in its annual
report. And, significantly, the bill creates a Senate-confirmed Chief
Enforcement Officer at USTR to investigate and prosecute trade
enforcement cases.
Second, the bill addresses serious concerns that have been raised
about the quality of recent World Trade Organization dispute settlement
decisions. It does so by establishing a commission of retired judges
and international trade law experts to review the decisions and
determine whether they impose obligations on the U.S. that are not
found in the text of the WTO agreements. The bill also prevents the
administration from changing a regulation to comply with an adverse WTO
decision until Congress receives the commission's report.
Third, the bill ensures that other U.S. government agencies do not
use foreign policy and other noneconomic rationales to block USTR from
taking tough enforcement actions. It clarifies that while USTR must
carefully consider any advice provided by the interagency trade
organization established under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it need
not, and shall not, seek approval of its actions from the organization.
The bill also bolsters enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws in four
important ways.
First, the bill limits the President's discretion to deny relief in
Section 421 cases to address Chinese import surges. This administration
has utterly failed to use this trade remedy as Congress intended. It
has denied relief in every case where the International Trade
Commission, ITC, determined that relief was warranted. Our bill
remedies this deficiency by requiring the President to proclaim any
import relief that the ITC recommends unless the President finds, in
extraordinary cases, that the relief would seriously harm our national
security or would have an adverse impact on our economy that clearly
and significantly outweighs the benefits. Congress may override the
economic determination and reinstate the ITC's decision if it enacts a
joint resolution of disapproval.
Second, the bill makes it easier for U.S. companies to obtain relief
from subsidized imports from certain countries. It clarifies that the
Commerce Department may apply countervailing duties to nonmarket
economies like China. The Commerce Department has long taken the
position that our countervailing duty laws do not apply to nonmarket
economies, and it has refused to do so until very recently. The bill
closes this loophole and eliminates any remaining uncertainty.
Third, the bill makes it easier for U.S. companies to obtain relief
from subsidized and dumped imports from all countries by overriding the
Federal Circuit's recent Bratsk decision. The bill provides that the
ITC must make its injury determinations in antidumping and
countervailing duty cases without regard to whether imports from other
countries are likely to replace imports from the country under
investigation.
Fourth, the bill increases intellectual property expertise at the
ITC. It authorizes the ITC to appoint hearing officers, rather than
administrative law judges, ALJs, to take evidence and make initial
decisions in intellectual property investigations under Section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930. Unlike the current ALJs, the hearing officers
would be required to have technical expertise and experience in
intellectual property law.
The overarching goal of this bill is, as Shakespeare might say, to
``wake up'' our trade laws from their current slumber and ensure that
the administration enforces them to the fullest extent. Our farmers,
ranchers, and companies deserve nothing less.
I therefore hope that my colleagues will support the Trade
Enforcement Act of 2007.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 1920. A bill to award competitive grants to eligible partnerships
to enable the partnerships to implement innovative strategies at the
secondary school level to improve student achievement and prepare at-
risk students for postsecondary education and the workforce; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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. 1920

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 ``Getting Retention and
Diplomas Up Among Today's Enrolled Students Act'' or the
``GRADUATES Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Since almost 90 percent of the fastest growing and best
paying jobs now require some postsecondary education, a
secondary school diploma and the skills to succeed in higher
education and the modern workplace are essential.
(2) Only \1/3\ of all high school students in the United
States graduate in 4 years prepared for a 4-year institution
of higher education. Another \1/3\ graduate, but without the
skills and qualifications necessary for success in higher
education or the workplace, and the rest will not graduate
from high school in 4 years, if at all.
(3) Dropouts from the class of 2006 will cost the United
States more that $309,000,000,000 in reduced earnings.
(4) The Nation's failure to meet the increasing demand for
skilled workers means that American companies cannot fill a
large number of jobs. 81 percent of American manufacturing
companies report experiencing a moderate to severe shortage
of qualified workers.
(5) International competition has made education a national
security issue. For example, the United States currently runs
a $30,000,000,000 advanced technology trade deficit with
China. Many other countries are developing the technology,
infrastructure, and knowledge base to export quality products
with inexpensive labor. The education system of the United
States should support critical thinking, creativity, and
innovative approaches to new opportunities, which are
commodities that cannot be outsourced.
(6) As the bar for success continues to be raised, the
responsibility to engender these attributes with progressive
programs and original models lies squarely with the education
system. It is imperative that the United States develop and
implement new, innovative approaches to fully prepare every
student for the 21st century.
(7) Realigning the education system to meet new, demanding
requirements and face intensifying competition requires
effective, systemic reform. Identifying effective, replicable
models that achieve this goal is a critical step towards
enhancing the prospects of all students entering the modern
workforce.

SEC. 3. SECONDARY SCHOOL INNOVATION FUND.

(a) Secondary School Innovation Fund.--Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part I as part J; and
(2) by inserting after section 1830 the following:

``PART I--SECONDARY SCHOOL INNOVATION FUND

``SEC. 1851. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this part are--
``(1) to improve the achievement of at-risk secondary
school students and prepare such students for higher
education and the workforce;
``(2) to create evidence-based, replicable models of
innovation in secondary schools at the State and local level;
and
``(3) to support partnerships to create and inform
innovation at the State and local level to improve learning
outcomes and transitions for secondary school students.

``SEC. 1852. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Eligible partnership.--The term `eligible
partnership' means a partnership that includes--

[[Page S10611]]

``(A) not less than 1--
``(i) State educational agency; or
``(ii) local educational agency that is eligible for
assistance under part A; and
``(B) not less than 1--
``(i) institution of higher education;
``(ii) nonprofit organization;
``(iii) community-based organization;
``(iv) business; or
``(v) school development organization or intermediary.
``(2) Eligible school.--The term `eligible school' means a
public secondary school served by a local educational agency
that is eligible for assistance under part A.
``(3) High school.--The term `high school' means a public
school, including a public charter high school, that provides
education in any grade beginning with grade 9 and ending with
grade 12, as determined under State law.
``(4) Middle school.--The term `middle school' means a
public school, including a public charter middle school, that
provides middle education in any grade beginning with grade 5
and ending with grade 8, as determined under State law.
``(5) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' has
the meaning given the term in section 9101.

``SEC. 1853. SECONDARY SCHOOL INNOVATION FUND.

``(a) Program Authorized.--
``(1) Grants to eligible partnerships.--The Secretary is
authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to
eligible partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to
pay the Federal share of the costs of implementing innovative
strategies described in subsection (f) to improve the
achievement of at-risk students in secondary schools.
``(2) Subgrants to eligible schools.--An eligible
partnership that receives a grant under this part may use the
grant funds to award a subgrant to an eligible school to
enable the eligible school to implement innovative strategies
described in subsection (f) to improve the achievement of at-
risk students at the eligible school.
``(b) Reservation of Funds.--The Secretary shall reserve 5
percent of the amounts appropriated under this part for a
fiscal year for the evaluation described in subsection (h).
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible partnership desiring a grant
under this part shall submit an application to the Secretary
at such time, in such manner, and containing such information
as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Contents.--The application described in paragraph (1)
shall include--
``(A) a description of the eligible partnership, the
partners forming the eligible partnership, and the roles and
responsibilities of each partner, and a demonstration of each
partner's capacity to support the outlined roles and
responsibilities;
``(B) a description of how funds will be used to improve
the achievement of at-risk students in secondary schools;
``(C) a description of how the activities funded by the
grant will be innovative, systemic, evidence-based, and
replicable;
``(D) a description of each subgrant the eligible
partnership will award to an eligible school, including a
description of the eligible school; and
``(E) a description of how the eligible partnership will
measure and report improvement using the data collected under
subsection (g) and additional indicators of improvement
proposed by the partnership, such as student attendance or
participation, credit accumulation rates, core course failure
rates, college enrollment and persistence rates, or number or
percentage of students taking Advanced Placement (AP),
International Baccalaureate (IB), or other postsecondary
education courses, rigorous postsecondary education
preparatory courses, or workforce apprenticeship and training
programs.
``(d) Application Review and Award Basis.--
``(1) Grant review and approval.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) establish a peer review process to assist in the
review of the grant applications and approval of the grants
under this section; and
``(B) appoint to the peer review process--
``(i) individuals who are educators and experts in--

``(I) secondary school reform;
``(II) accountability;
``(III) secondary school improvement;
``(IV) innovative education models; and
``(V) other educational needs of secondary school students;
and

``(ii) not less than 1 parent or community representative;
and
``(C) ensure that each grant award is of sufficient size
and scope to carry out the activities proposed in the grant
application, including the evaluation required under
subsection (g)(3).
``(2) Award basis.--In awarding grants under this part, the
Secretary shall ensure, to the extent practicable--
``(A) diversity in the type of activities funded under the
grants;
``(B) an equitable geographic distribution of the grants,
including urban and rural areas; and
``(C) that the grants support activities--
``(i) that target different grade levels of students at the
secondary school level; and
``(ii) in a variety of types of secondary schools,
including middle schools and high schools.
``(e) Federal Share, Non-Federal Share.--
``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant under
this part shall be not more than 75 percent of the costs of
the activities assisted under the grant.
``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share shall be
not less than 25 percent of the costs of the activities
assisted under the grant, of which not more than 10 percent
of the costs of the activities assisted under the grant may
be provided in-kind, fairly evaluated.
``(f) Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership receiving a
grant under this part, or an eligible school receiving a
subgrant under this part, shall use grant or subgrant funds,
respectively, to carry out 1 or more of the following
activities:
``(1) Creating multiple pathways, including the creation of
new public schools, that offer students a range of
educational options designed to meet the students' needs and
interests and to lead to a secondary school diploma
consistent with readiness for postsecondary education and the
workforce, which pathways may include--
``(A) alternative public schools that--
``(i) use innovative strategies such as flexible hours;
``(ii) provide competency-based instruction and
performance-based assessment to improve educational outcomes
for various populations of overaged and undercredited
students or dropouts, such as--

``(I) students not making sufficient progress to graduate
with a regular secondary school diploma in the standard
number of years;
``(II) students who need to work to support themselves or
their families;
``(III) pregnant and parenting teens; and
``(IV) students returning from the juvenile justice system;

``(B) career and technical education programs;
``(C) career academies;
``(D) early college and dual enrollment learning
opportunities; and
``(E) creating more personalized and engaging learning
environments for secondary school students, such as--
``(i) establishing smaller learning communities;
``(ii) creating student advisories and developing peer
engagement strategies in which students lead guidance
activities, mentoring, or tutoring efforts;
``(iii) involving students and parents in the development
of individualized student plans for secondary school success
and graduation and postsecondary transition;
``(iv) creating mechanisms for increased student
participation in school improvement efforts and in decisions
affecting the students' own learning; and
``(v) creating new opportunities to better utilize the
grade 11 and grade 12 years and creating better connectivity
to postsecondary education.
``(2) Creating expanded learning time opportunities, which
may include--
``(A) establishing a mandatory expanded day, for all
students transitioning into the first year of high school,
for academic catch-up and enrichment;
``(B) providing arts or service learning opportunities with
community-based cultural and civic organizations; and
``(C) providing higher education and work-based exposure,
experience, and credit-bearing learning opportunities in
partnership with postsecondary institutions and the
workforce.
``(3) Improving student transitions from middle school to
high school and ensuring successful entry into high school,
which may include--
``(A) establishing summer transition programs for secondary
school students transitioning from middle school to high
school to ensure the students' connection to the students'
new high school and to orient the students to the study
skills and social skills necessary for success in the high
school;
``(B) providing for the sharing of data between high
schools and feeder middle schools;
``(C) establishing quick response and recovery programs in
high school for secondary school students transitioning into
the students' first year of high school so that such students
do not become truant or fall too far behind in academics;
``(D) increasing the level of student supports, including
academic and social-emotional supports, especially for
struggling students; and
``(E) aligning academic standards, curricula, and
assessments between middle and high schools.
``(4) Improving student transitions from secondary school
to postsecondary education and the workforce, which may
include--
``(A) providing for the sharing of data between secondary
schools and institutions of higher education;
``(B) enabling dual enrollment and credit-bearing learning
opportunities;
``(C) establishing one or more early college secondary
schools that offer students a secondary school diploma and
not more than 2 years of college credit within a 4- or 5-year
program;
``(D) providing enhanced higher education and financial aid
counseling; and
``(E) aligning the academic standards of secondary school
with the academic standards of postsecondary education and
the requirements and expectations of the workforce.

[[Page S10612]]

``(5) Increasing the autonomy and flexibility of secondary
schools, which may include--
``(A) establishing a process whereby existing schools can
apply for flexibility in such areas as scheduling, curricula,
budgeting, and governance; and
``(B) starting new small public secondary schools that are
guaranteed such autonomies.
``(6) Improving learning opportunities for secondary school
students in rural schools, including through the use of
distance-learning opportunities and other technology-based
tools.
``(7) Redesigning a middle school--
``(A) to prevent student disengagement and improve
achievement; and
``(B) to better respond to early warning signs that
students are at risk of dropping out of school, such as poor
attendance, poor behavior, or course failure.
``(8) Improving teaching and increasing academic rigor at
the secondary school level, which may include--
``(A) improving the alignment of academic standards with
the requirements and expectations of postsecondary education
and the workforce;
``(B) improving the teaching and assessment of 21st century
skills, including through the development of formative
assessment models;
``(C) increasing community involvement, including
leveraging community-based services and opportunities to
provide every student with the academic and nonacademic
supports necessary for academic success;
``(D) increasing parental involvement, including providing
parents with the tools to navigate, support, and influence
their child's academic career and choices through secondary
school graduation and into postsecondary education and the
workforce; and
``(E) addressing the learning needs of various student
populations, including students who are limited English
proficient, late entrant English language learners, and
students with disabilities.
``(g) Data Collection and Evaluation.--
``(1) Collection of data.--Each eligible partnership
receiving a grant under this part shall collect and report
annually to the Secretary such information on the results of
the activities assisted under the grant as the Secretary may
reasonably require, including information on--
``(A) the number and percentage of students who--
``(i) are served by the eligible partnership;
``(ii) are assisted under this part; and
``(iii) graduate from secondary school with a regular
secondary school diploma in the standard number of years;
``(B) the number and percentage of students, at each grade
level, who are--
``(i) served by the eligible partnership;
``(ii) assisted under this part; and
``(iii) on track to graduate from secondary school with a
regular secondary school diploma in the standard number of
years;
``(C) the number and percentage of students, at each grade
level, who--
``(i) are served by the eligible partnership;
``(ii) are assisted under this part; and
``(iii) meet or exceed State challenging student academic
achievement standards in mathematics, reading or language
arts, or science, as measured by the State academic
assessments under section 1111(b)(3);
``(D) information consistent with the additional indicators
of improvement proposed by the eligible partnership in the
grant application; and
``(E) other information the Secretary may require as
necessary for the evaluation described in subsection (h).
``(2) Reporting of data.--Each eligible partnership
receiving a grant under this part shall disaggregate the
information required under paragraph (1) in the same manner
as information is disaggregated under section
1111(h)(1)(C)(i).
``(3) Evaluation.--
``(A) In general.--Each eligible partnership receiving a
grant under this part shall enter into a contract with an
outside evaluator to enable the evaluator to conduct--
``(i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant after
the third year of implementation of the grant; and
``(ii) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant
after the final year of the grant period.
``(B) Distribution.--Upon completion of an evaluation
described in subparagraph (A), the eligible partnership shall
submit a copy of the evaluation to the Secretary in a timely
manner.
``(h) Evaluation; Best Practices.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts reserved under subsection
(b), the Secretary shall--
``(A) enter into a contract with an outside evaluator to
enable the evaluator to conduct--
``(i) a comprehensive evaluation after the third year of
implementation on the effectiveness of all grants awarded
under this part; and
``(ii) a final evaluation following the final year of the
grant period with a focus on improvement in student
achievement as a result of innovative strategies; and
``(B) disseminate best practices in improving the
achievement of secondary school students.
``(2) Peer review.--
``(A) In general.--An evaluator receiving a contract under
this subsection shall--
``(i) establish a peer-review process to assist in the
review and approval of the evaluations conducted under this
subsection; and
``(ii) appoint individuals to the peer-review process who
are educators and experts in--

``(I) research and evaluation; and
``(II) the areas of expertise described in subclauses (I)
through (V) of subsection (d)(1)(B)(i).

``(B) Restrictions on use.--The Secretary shall not
distribute or use the results of any evaluation described in
paragraph (1)(A) until the results are peer-reviewed in
accordance with subparagraph (A).
``(i) Continuation of Funding.--An eligible partnership
that receives a grant under this part shall only be eligible
to receive a grant payment for a fourth or fifth year of the
grant if the Secretary determines, on the basis of the
evaluation of the grant under subsection (h)(1)(A)(i), that
the performance of the eligible partnership under the grant
has been satisfactory.
``(j) Rule of Construction Regarding Discrimination.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, or disability in any program or activity
funded under this part.

``SEC. 1854. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and for each of the
succeeding 5 years.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in
section 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 note) is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to Part I and inserting
the following:

``Part J--General Provisions''; and

(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 1830
the following:

``PART I--Secondary School Innovation Fund

``Sec. 1851. Purposes.
``Sec. 1852. Definitions.
``Sec. 1853. Secondary school innovation fund.
``Sec. 1854. Authorization of appropriations.''.
______

By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Pryor,
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Lott, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Warner, Mrs.
Lincoln, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1921. A bill to amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of
1996 to extend the authorization for that Act, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague
Senator Jeff Sessions and 14 of our Senate colleagues to introduce the
Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2007. This bipartisan
legislation was recently introduced in the House by Congressmen Gary
Miller of California and Bart Gordon of Tennessee and presently enjoys
the support of 26 Members of Congress.
Our bill is a straightforward, 5 year extension of the 2002 Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Act. The purpose of this legislation remains
the same as when Congress first passed it: to preserve and protect
nationally significant Civil War battlefields through conservation
easements and fee-simple purchases of battlefield sites. In addition,
the legislation fosters partnerships among State and local governments,
regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and
enhance nationally significant Civil War battlefields.
The legislation continues to protect private property rights by
limiting land acquisitions to willing sellers only. It also requires a
50-50 match in order for projects to be eligible to receive Federal
funds. Finally, the program limits the effect on the burgeoning
National Park Service's maintenance backlog because non-Federal
entities are responsible for the long-term maintenance of sites not
within National Park Service boundaries.
In 1990, Congress established the Civil War Sites Advisory
commission, a blue-ribbon panel empowered to investigate the status of
America's remaining Civil War battlefields. Congress tasked the
commission with the mission of prioritizing these battlefields
according to their historic importance and the threats to their
survival. The commission ultimately looked at the 10,000-plus battles
and skirmishes of the Civil War and determined that 384 priority sites
should be preserved. The results of the report were released in 1993
and they were not encouraging.
The 1993 commission report recommended that Congress create an
emergency program to save threatened Civil War battlefield land. The
result was the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, which was
first funded

[[Page S10613]]

in fiscal year 1999 and originally authorized in 2002. To date, the
preservation program has saved over 14,000 acres of land in 15 States.
The key to the success of the preservation program is that it
achieves battlefield preservation through collaborative partnerships
between State and local governments, the private sector and nonprofit
organizations, such as the Civil War Preservation Trust.
But for the preservation program and its non-Federal partners, we
would have lost key sites from national shrines at Antietam.
Chancellorsville. Fredericksburg. Manassas. Harpers Ferry. Bentonville.
Mansfield. Champion Hill. Their names of these legendary battlegrounds
continue to haunt us to this day. Had the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program not been available as a tool to preserve
threatened battlefield land, these sites and others like them would
have surely been lost forever to commercial and residential
development.
It is not every day you can visit battlefield sites and have an
immediate, direct connection with your ancestors. We must preserve
these sites so that future generations might see and touch the very
places where so many sacrifices were made, by soldiers and civilians
alike. We are a stronger, more diverse and free Nation because of these
sacrifices.
I would remind my colleagues that the preservation program has
enjoyed bipartisan, bicameral support since its inception. In 2002,
program funding was authorized through the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Act at the level recommended by the Civil War Sites
Advisory Commission, $10 million a year. These Federal funds have, and
will continue to, leverage millions more in private and other
charitable donations; thereby increasing our ability to preserve more
threatened battlefield sites.
The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act has become an essential
tool for protecting our nation's Civil War battlefields. I would urge
my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize this important federal
program. The clock is ticking against these threatened historical sites
and we must keep the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program as a
valuable tool to preserve them.
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. 1921

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 ``Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Civil War battlefields provide a means for the people
of the United States to understand a tragic period in the
history of the United States.
(2) According to the Report on the Nation's Civil War
Battlefields, prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission, and dated July 1993, of the 384 principal Civil
War battlefields--
(A) almost 20 percent are lost or fragmented;
(B) 17 percent are in poor condition; and
(C) 60 percent have been lost or are in imminent danger of
being fragmented by development and lost as coherent historic
sites.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to act quickly and proactively to preserve and protect
nationally significant Civil War battlefields through
conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of those
battlefields from willing sellers at fair market value;
(2) to create partnerships among State and local
governments, regional entities, and the private sector to
preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil
War battlefields; and
(3) to prepare our Nation for the upcoming sesquicentennial
commemoration of the Civil War, 2011 through 2015, which is
expected to stimulate renewed interest in the conflict and
generate unprecedented visitation to preserved Civil War
battlegrounds.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION EXTENDED.

The American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.
469k) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(7)(A), by striking ``fiscal years
2004 through 2008'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2009 through
2013''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``September 30, 2008''
and inserting ``September 30, 2013''.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1922. A bill to apply basic contracting laws to the Transportation
Security Administration; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing
the TSA Acquisition Reform Act of 2007 to repeal exemptions from
Federal contracting laws that were granted to the Transportation
Security Administration, TSA, after 9/11 in the rush to secure
airports. Representative Carney has introduced identical legislation in
the House and I look forward to working with him to improve contracting
at TSA.
TSA is one of the few Federal agencies and the only agency within the
Department of Homeland Security that is not subject to the same
procurement rules that every other Federal agency, including the
Department of Defense, must abide.
Specifically, it is exempt from the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
FAR, which covers every major procurement law and requires Federal
agencies to provide for an open and competitive bidding process and
submit contract information to the Federal Procurement Data System.
TSA's exemption from the FAR was never meant to be permanent, and this
amendment would bring the agency in line with normal Federal
contracting rules.
TSA has a record of mismanaging contracts and wasting taxpayer
dollars, and has been the subject of several DOT and DHS Inspector
General reports. For instance, in 2002, TSA, despite using FAR
guidelines, issued a federally prohibited cost-plus-a-percentage
contract to Boeing to install explosive detection systems in airports.
In September 2004, the IG found that the initial $508 million contract
ballooned to $1.2 billion, that Boeing was paid $49 million in excess
profit, received $82 million to cover $39 million in costs, and
ultimately received a 210 percent return on its investment.
In 2005, the Washington Post reported on an audit by the Defense
Contract Audit Agency which showed that a contract issued to the
Pearson government solutions firm to recruit Federal passenger
screeners increased in cost from $104 million to $741 million in 9
months in part because TSA changed the scope of the contract to require
Pearson to use posh hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria, as
recruitment centers. TSA disputes this account, but cannot provide any
paperwork to back it up. The article quoted Deputy DHS Secretary
Michael Jackson as saying, ``Honestly, I have no memory of it.''
In 2004, the when the GAO wanted to review 21 TSA contracts, it
literally had to send staff to rummage through boxes of files to
retrieve information that would otherwise have been in the Federal
Procurement Data System.
As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am particular
concerned about TSA's inability to meet its small business contracting
goals. I am pleased that the 2007 DHS Appropriations bill applied the
Small Business Act to TSA, but small business owners won't truly
benefit because TSA is still exempt from basic contracting rules under
the FAR that helps them compete for Federal contracts. Although TSA's
small business contracting goal is 23 percent annually, only 10.7
percent of its contracts went to small businesses in 2005. Analysis
conducted by my staff suggest that the true figure is closer to 6
percent because many of the large corporations that contract with TSA
set up subsidiaries that technically qualify as small businesses but
are in fact part of a larger corporation. I am concerned about this and
I know that my colleague, Senator Snowe, the ranking member of the
Small Business Committee, is concerned as well.

There is another important reason to require TSA to follow the FAR.
DHS, which encompasses 22 different agencies, is trying to create a
unified procurement system and a common culture within the department.
The Comptroller General noted last year before the House Homeland
Security Committee that ``the various acquisition organizations within
DHS are still operating in a disparate manner, with oversight of
acquisition activities left primarily up to each individual
component.'' How can DHS create a common contracting system when the
agency that spends the most money on contracts within the department is
exempt from the department's own rules?

[[Page S10614]]

It would be wrong to suggest that exemption from FAR is the main
reason that TSA has mismanaged contracts. Its acquisition office was
understaffed after 9/11, and there was a rush to meet Congressional
deadlines that led to sloppy oversight. I understand that TSA has spent
millions to improve its contracting office and I commend it for doing
so. However, it is far from clear that TSA has a functional procurement
system. A 2006 GAO review of the ongoing Boeing contract suggests that
poor contracting oversight continues to plague TSA. The report states
that ``TSA officials provided no evidence that they are reviewing
required contractor submitted performance data,'' and that they ``do
not document their activities because there are no TSA policies and
procedures requiring them to do so. I know all Members would agree that
this is a problem.
Unfortunately, lack of transparency and accountability are common
themes in TSA's procurement history. Former DHS IG Kent Ervin has said
that ``TSA is rapidly becoming the poster child for contracting
dysfunction.'' Citizens Against Government Waste, which has endorsed
this amendment, said in a letter to my office that ``TSA has a record
of wasteful spending and mismanagement in its acquisition process and a
continued exemption will only lead to more abuse.'' I think we would be
remiss in our oversight responsibilities if we did not repeal these
exemptions. TSA should not be policing itself.
I am not alone with these concerns. Just ask the Professional
Services Council, the Nation's largest trade association representing
Government contractors. In a letter to sent to my office yesterday, the
PSC stated that my amendment will ``increase competition, expand
opportunities for small businesses, provide greater accountability and
transparency in their procurement process.'' This judgment comes from
the association representing the contractors that do business with TSA.
Last year, TSA sent a letter to my office saying that it follows the
FAR as a general rule but that its exemption ``benefits taxpayers.''
Amazingly, TSA criticized the FAR's requirement that Federal agencies
consider all interested companies in the bidding process, saying that
``negatively impacts the limited resources of the government.'' It is
hard to see how taxpayers benefit when an agency has the ability to opt
out of the competitive bidding process at its choosing. The Army,
Marines, Navy, Air Force, none of these agencies can simply decide to
opt out of the FAR unless they meet the criteria for an exemption which
is already provided for under the law.
This legislation is simple: apply the same rules to TSA that every
other agency has to follow. There is no legitimate reason to maintain
these exemptions--not for efficiency, not for national security. If it
is good enough for the Department of Defense, it is good enough for
TSA.
I look forward to working with Senator Snowe and Representative
Carney to pass this important legislation.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Smith):
S. 1925. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to prevent credit
card issuers from taking unfair advantage of college students and their
parents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Credit
Card Protection Act of 2007 with my colleagues Senators Smith,
McCaskill, Sanders, and Durbin. This legislation will help prevent
college students from compiling massive credit card debt while in
school.
College students have become the target of credit card companies
advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow
credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students
free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card application.
Additionally, students receive card solicitations through mail to their
on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before they arrive at
the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing strategies have
worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates hold a credit
card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The average college
student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card debt, double the
amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students are leaving school
with multiple credit cards and debts amounting upwards of $10,000.
Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an
apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to
the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions,
many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit
Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt
while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires
credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and
then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student
without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must
co-sign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit.
These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for
credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students'
ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy.
It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young
consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a
student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in
student loan debt. Paying for housing, healthcare, and student loans
already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge
credit card payment on top of all card of the other bills can lead to
financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their
feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from
irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt
repayment.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 1926. A bill to establish the National Infrastructure Bank to
provide funding for qualified infrastructure projects, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation
with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. The bill addresses an
issue of paramount importance to our country and its quality of life:
the deteriorating condition of our infrastructure systems.
I do not believe there is one person present in this chamber, funding
myself, who has not taken our Nation's infrastructure systems for
granted at some point. Indeed, our roads, bridges, mass transit
systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, and public housing
properties, collectively comprise the overlooked but critically
important adhesive that holds our society together. These systems allow
for the continuous passage of people and goods across the country; they
allow people to communicate with each other here and around the world;
they allow business and Government to function; and they allow goods to
be consumed and services to be rendered. All in all, our infrastructure
systems are directly responsible for providing the high quality of life
that we Americans have come to enjoy in a free society.
Yet, it is precisely because we have taken our infrastructure systems
for granted that we find ourselves in a precarious position today
concerning their future viability. One does not have to look far to
comprehend the extensive problems plaguing many of our infrastructure
systems and facilities.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their seminal
2005 Infrastructure Report Card, the current condition of our Nation's
major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and
jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, 33 percent of all
urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre or fair condition. 27.1
percent of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete. Data from the Federal Transit Administration shows our mass
transit systems are becoming increasingly unable to handle the growing
demands passengers in a safe and efficient manner. According to the
Texas Transportation Institute, the average traveler is delayed 51.5
hours annually due to traffic and infrastructure-related congestion in
the Nation's

[[Page S10615]]

20 largest metropolitan areas. The delays range from 93 hours in Los
Angeles to 14 hours in Pittsburgh. Combined, these delays waste 1.78
billion gallons of fuel each year and waste almost $50.3 billion in
congestion costs. Furthermore, the average delay in these metropolitan
areas has increased by almost 35.3 hours since 1982.
A significant percentage of our Nation's drinking water and
wastewater systems are obsolete; the average age of these systems range
in age from 50 years in smaller cities to 100 years in larger cities.
Finally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reports there
are 1.2 million units of public housing with critical capital needs
totaling $18 billion. Clearly, these statistics are alarming and they
are not getting any better.
In their Infrastructure Report Card, the American Society of Civil
Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a 5-year period
to bring our Nation's infrastructure systems to a good condition.
Regrettably, our current infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as
formula grants and earmarks, are not equipped by themselves to absorb
this cost or meet fully these growing needs. They largely do not
address capacity-building infrastructure projects of regional or
national significance; they largely do not encourage an appropriate
pooling of Federal, State, local and private resources; and they
largely do not provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on
public resources.
This is why I rise with my colleague from Nebraska today. We are
introducing the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007, a bipartisan
measure that addresses the critical needs of our Nation's major
infrastructure systems. Our legislation establishes a new method
through which the Federal Government can finance infrastructure
projects of substantial regional or national significance more
effectively with public and private capital.
Our legislation establishes the National Infrastructure Bank, which,
as an independent entity of the Government, is tasked with evaluating
and financing capacity-building infrastructure projects of substantial
regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects that come
under the bank's consideration are publicly-owned mass transit systems,
housing properties, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and
wastewater systems.
Modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the bank is
led by a 5 member Board of Directors, each whom are appointed by the
Prsident and confirmed by the Senate. The bank's board has flexibility
to develop an organization of professional civil service staff to carry
out the bank's authorized activities. An Inspector General oversees the
bank's daily operations and reports on those operations to Congress.
Infrastructure projects with a potential Federal investment of at
least $75 million are brought to the bank's attention by a project
sponsor, State, locality, tribe, infrastructure agency, e.g. transit
agency, a consortium of these entities. To determine a level of Federal
investment, the bank uses a sliding-scale method that incorporates
conditions such as the type of infrastructure system or systems,
project location, project cost, current and projected usage, non-
Federal revenue, regional or national significance, promotion of
economic growth and community development, reduction in traffic
congestion, environmental benefits, land use policies that promote
smart growth, and mobility improvements.
Once a level of investment is determined for a project, the bank
develops a financing package with full faith and credit from the
government. The financing package could include direct subsidies,
direct loan guarantees, long-term tax-credit general purpose bonds, and
long-term tax-credit infrastructure project specific bonds. The initial
ceiling to issue bonds is $60 billion.
The bank is tasked to report annually to Congress on the projects it
reviews and finances. A public database is created to catalog what
projects were funded and what financing packages were provided. The
bank is also tasked to report every 3 years on the economic efficacy
and transparency of all current Federal infrastructure financing
methods, and how those methods could be improved. After 5 years, the
Government Accountability Office would be tasked with evaluating the
bank's operations and efficacy.
It is important to note that our legislation does not displace or
supplant any existing infrastructure finance mechanisms, such as
formula grants and earmarks. Instead, the bank targets large-scale
projects that are currently underserved by these existing financing
mechanisms.
I would like to take a moment to thank the Centers for Strategic and
International Studies, CSIS, and the work undertaken by Dr. John Hamre
in infrastucture finance. CSIS, Ambassador Felix Rohatyn, and former
Senator Warren Rudman have provided valuable assistance and support in
the development of our legislation.
I would also like to thank the American Society of Civil Engineers
and the National Construction Alliance for their support of our bill.
It is my intent to take up this legislation in the Banking Committee
after the August recess. This is an issue that cannot be neglected or
deferred any further. Restoring our Nation's infrastructure demands our
immediate attention and commitment in the Senate. The quality of life
in our country hangs in the balance.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of
support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1926

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE I--NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

Sec. 101. Establishment of Bank.
Sec. 102. Management of Bank.
Sec. 103. Staff and personnel matters.

TITLE II--POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BANK

Sec. 201. Powers of the Bank Board.
Sec. 202. Qualified infrastructure project ratings.
Sec. 203. Development of financing package.
Sec. 204. Coupon notes for holders of infrastructure bonds.
Sec. 205. Exemption from local taxation.

TITLE III--STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec. 301. Report; database.
Sec. 302. Study and report on infrastructure financing mechanisms.
Sec. 303. GAO report.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) according to the American Society of Civil Engineers,
the current condition of the infrastructure of the United
States earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the
prosperity and quality of life of the citizens of the United
States;
(2) according to the Federal Transit Administration--
(A) approximately $15,800,000,000 must be expended each
year for a period of not less than 20 years to maintain the
operational capacity of the transit systems of the United
States; and
(B) approximately $21,800,000,000 must be expended each
year for a period of not less than 20 years to improve the
operational capacity of the transit systems of the United
States to meet the growing demands of passengers in a safe
and adequate manner;
(3) according to the Millennial Housing Commission, there
remains a critical shortage of affordable public housing for
extreme low-income individuals;
(4) there are over 1,200,000 units of public housing
nationwide, with an accumulated capital needs backlog of
approximately $18,000,000,000, with an additional
$2,000,000,000 accruing each year;
(5) according to the Federal Highway Administration--
(A) 33 percent of all urban and rural roads in the United
States are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition;
(B) approximately $131,700,000,000 must be expended each
year for a period of not less than 20 years to improve the
conditions of those urban and rural roads;
(C) 27.1 percent of all bridges in the United States are--
(i) structurally deficient; or
(ii) functionally obsolete; and
(D) approximately $9,400,000,000 must be expended each year
for a period of not less than 20 years to eliminate the
deficiencies of those bridges;
(6) according to the Environmental Protection Agency--
(A) $151,000,000,000 must be expended during the next 20
years to make necessary repairs, replacements, and upgrades
to the approximately 55,000 community drinking water systems
of the United States; and

[[Page S10616]]

(B) approximately $390,000,000,000 must be expended during
the next 20 years to eliminate the deficiencies of the
wastewater systems of the United States;
(7) the infrastructure financing mechanisms of the United
States do not adequately--
(A) address infrastructure projects of regional or national
significance;
(B) encourage an appropriate pooling of Federal, State,
local, and private resources; or
(C) provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on
public resources;
(8) there are no Federal financing notes, credits, or bonds
which allow investors to fund only infrastructure projects;
(9) there is a need to involve pension funds and other
private investors who want to invest in infrastructure, but
to whom tax credits have no value; and
(10) there are no federally guaranteed investment notes of
greater than 30 years in duration, whereas many federally
funded assets are of durations much longer than 30 years.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Bank.--The term ``Bank'' means the ``National
Infrastructure Bank'' established under section 101.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the board of directors
of the Bank, established under section 102.
(3) Chairperson; vice chairperson.--The terms
``Chairperson'' and ``Vice Chairperson'' mean the Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson of the Board, respectively.
(4) Financing mechanism.--
(A) In general.--The term ``financing mechanism'' means a
method used by the Bank to pledge the full faith and credit
of the United States to provide money, credit, or other
capital to a qualified infrastructure project.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``financing mechanism''
includes--
(i) a direct subsidy;
(ii) a general purpose infrastructure bond; and
(iii) a project-based infrastructure bond.
(5) Financing package.--The term ``financing package''
means 1 or more financing mechanisms used by the Bank to meet
the Federal commitment for a qualified infrastructure
project.
(6) General purpose infrastructure bond.--The term
``general purpose infrastructure bond'' means a bond issued
as part of an issue in accordance with this Act, if--
(A) the net spendable proceeds from the sale of the issue
may be used for expenditures incurred after the date of
issuance with respect to any qualified infrastructure project
or purpose, subject to the rules of the Bank;
(B) the bond is issued by the Bank, is in registered form,
and meets the requirements of this Act and otherwise
applicable law;
(C) the term of each bond which is part of the issue is
greater than 30 years; and
(D) the payment of principal with respect to the bond is
the obligation of the Bank.
(7) Infrastructure project.--
(A) In general.--The term ``infrastructure project'' means
the building, improvement, or increase in capacity of a basic
installation, facility, asset, or stock that is associated
with--
(i) a mass transit system that meets the criteria in
subparagraph (B);
(ii) a public housing property that is eligible to receive
funding under section 24 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v) and that meets the criteria in
subparagraph (B);
(iii) a road or bridge that meets the criteria in
subparagraph (B); or
(iv) a drinking water system or a wastewater system that
meets the criteria in subparagraph (B).
(B) Criteria.--A project described in any of clauses (i)
through (iv) of subparagraph (A) meets the criteria of this
subparagraph if it serves any one or more of the objectives
identified in paragraphs (1) through (9) of section 101(c) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5301(c)).
(8) Project-based infrastructure bond.--The term ``project-
based infrastructure bond'' means any bond issued as part of
an issue, if--
(A) the net spendable proceeds from the sale of the issue
are to be used for expenditures incurred after the date of
issuance only with respect to the qualified infrastructure
project for which the bond is issued;
(B) the bond is issued by the Bank, meets the requirements
of section 149(a) of title 26, United States Code, for
registration, and otherwise meets the requirements of this
Act and other applicable law;
(C) the term of each bond which is part of the issue is
equal to the useful life of the qualified infrastructure
project funded through use of the bond; and
(D) the payment of principal with respect to the bond is
the obligation of the Bank.
(9) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing
agency'' means an agency described in section 3(b)(6) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)).
(10) Public sponsor.--The term ``public sponsor'' includes
a State or local government, an Indian tribe (as defined in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b), a public transit agency,
public housing agency, a public infrastructure agency, or a
consortium of those entities, including a public entity that
has partnered with a private nonprofit or for-profit entity.
(11) Qualified infrastructure project.--The term
``qualified infrastructure project'' means an infrastructure
project designated by the Board as a qualified infrastructure
project in accordance with section 202.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Until such time as the Bank has received funds from the
issuance of bonds sufficient to carry out this Act and the
administration of the Bank, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Bank, such sums as may be necessary for
such purposes, to remain available until expended.

TITLE I--NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF BANK.

There is established the ``National Infrastructure Bank'',
which shall be an independent establishment of the Federal
Government, as defined in section 104 of title 5, United
States Code.

SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT OF BANK.

(a) Board of Directors.--
(1) In general.--The management of the Bank shall be vested
in a Board of Directors consisting of 5 members, appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, from among individuals who are citizens of the United
States.
(2) Member expertise.--Not fewer than 1 member of the Board
shall have demonstrated expertise in--
(A) transit infrastructure;
(B) public housing infrastructure;
(C) road and bridge infrastructure;
(D) water infrastructure; or
(E) public finance.
(3) Political affiliation.--Section 2(a)(2) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1812(a)(2) shall apply to
members of the Board of Directors of the Bank in the same
manner as it applies to the Board of Directors of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(4) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not later than 90 days
after the date on which all directors of the Board are first
appointed, and otherwise at the call of the Chairperson.
(5) Date of appointments.--The initial nominations to the
Board shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson of the Board shall be appointed and shall
serve in the same manner as is provided for members of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation under section 2(b) of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1812(b)).
(c) Terms.--
(1) Appointed members.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), each member of the Board shall be appointed for a term
of 6 years.
(2) Initial staggered terms.--Of the initial members of the
Board--
(A) the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be appointed
for a term of 6 years;
(B) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 5 years;
(C) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 4 years; and
(D) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years.
(3) Interim appointments.--Any member of the Board
appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration
of the term for which the predecessor of such member was
appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such
term.
(4) Continuation of service.--The Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, and each other member of the Board may continue
to serve after the expiration of the term of office to which
such member was appointed, until a successor has been
appointed.
(d) Vacancy.--Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled in
the manner in which the original appointment was made.
(e) Ineligibility for Other Offices.--
(1) Restriction during service.--No member of the Board
may, during service on the Board--
(A) be an officer or director of, or otherwise be employed
by, any entity engaged in or otherwise associated with an
infrastructure project assisted or considered under this Act;
(B) hold stock in any such entity; or
(C) hold any other elected or appointed public office.
(2) Post service restriction.--
(A) In general.--No member of the Board may hold any
office, position, or employment in any entity engaged in or
otherwise associated with an infrastructure project assisted
under this Act during the 2-year period beginning on the date
on which such member ceases to serve on the Board.
(B) Exception for members who serve full term.--The
limitation contained in subparagraph (A) does not apply to
any member who has ceased to serve on the Board after serving
the full term for which such member was appointed.
(3) Certification.--Upon taking office, each member of the
Board shall certify under oath that such member has complied
with this subsection, and such certification shall be filed
with the secretary of the Board.

SEC. 103. STAFF AND PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Executive Director.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson may appoint and terminate,
and fix the compensation of, an executive director of the
Bank, in accordance with title 5, United States Code.
(2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director

[[Page S10617]]

shall be subject to confirmation by the Board.
(3) Qualifications of executive director.--An individual
appointed as the executive director under paragraph (1) shall
have demonstrated expertise in--
(A) transit infrastructure;
(B) public housing infrastructure;
(C) road and bridge infrastructure;
(D) water infrastructure; or
(E) public finance.
(b) Other Personnel.--The Board may appoint and terminate,
and fix the compensation of, in accordance with title 5,
United States Code, such personnel as are necessary to enable
the Bank to perform the duties of the Bank.
(c) Inspector General.--
(1) In general.--Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the Chairperson of the
National Infrastructure Bank;'' after ``the Chairperson of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the National
Infrastructure Bank;'' after ``the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation;''.
(2) Executive schedule level iv.--Section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the following:
``Inspector General, National Infrastructure Bank.''.
(d) Support From Other Agencies.--The head of any other
Federal agency may detail employees to the Bank for purposes
of carrying out the duties of the Bank.
(e) Compensation of Board Members.--
(1) Chairperson.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the following:
``Chairperson, Board of Directors, National Infrastructure
Bank.''.
(2) Other members.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the
Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, the following:
``Member, Board of Directors of the National Infrastructure
Bank.''.

TITLE II--POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BANK

SEC. 201. POWERS OF THE BANK BOARD.

(a) Hearings.--The Board may, in carrying out this Act--
(1) hold such hearings, meet and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and
administer such oaths, as the Board considers advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes,
and materials, as the Board considers advisable.
(b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--A subpoena issued under subsection (a)
shall--
(A) bear the signature of the Chairperson and a majority of
the members of the Board; and
(B) be served by any person or class of persons designated
by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a)(2), the United
States district court for the district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may
issue an order requiring the person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence.
(3) Noncompliance.--Any failure to obey the order of the
court may be punished by the court as a contempt of court.
(c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--
(1) In general.--Section 1821 of title 28, United States
Code, shall apply to a witness requested or subpoenaed to
appear at a hearing of the Board.
(2) Expenses.--The per diem and mileage allowances for a
witness shall be paid from funds available to pay the
expenses of the Board.
(d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Board may, upon
request, secure directly from a Federal agency, such
information as the Board considers necessary to carry out
this Act, and the head of such agency shall promptly respond
to any such request for the provision of information.
(e) Incorporation of Federal Transit Processes for Board
Statements.--Section 5334(l) of title 49, United States Code,
as added by section 3032 of the Federal Public Transportation
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1627), shall apply
to statements of the Board in the same manner and to the same
extent as that section applies to statements of the
Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.

SEC. 202. QUALIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT RATINGS.

(a) In General.--The Bank shall, upon application and
otherwise in accordance with this section, designate
infrastructure projects as qualified projects for purposes of
assistance under this Act.
(b) Applicants.--The Bank shall accept applications for the
designation of qualified infrastructure projects under this
section from among public sponsors, for any infrastructure
project having--
(1) a potential Federal commitment of an amount that is not
less than $75,000,000;
(2) a public sponsor; and
(3) regional or national significance.
(c) Guidelines for Developing Projects.--The Secretary
shall establish guidelines to assist grant recipients under
this title to develop applications for funding under this
section. The guidelines shall include the objectives listed
in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 105(e) of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(e)).
(d) Ratings.--In making a determination as to a designation
of a qualified infrastructure project, the Board shall
evaluate and rate each applicant based on the factors
appropriate for that type of infrastructure project, which
shall include--
(1) for any transit project--
(A) regional or national significance;
(B) promotion of economic growth;
(C) reduction in traffic congestion;
(D) environmental benefits, including reduction in
pollution from reduced use of automobiles from direct trip
reduction and indirect trip reduction through land use and
density changes;
(E) urban land use policies, including those that promote
smart growth; and
(F) mobility improvements;
(2) for any public housing project--
(A) regional or national significance;
(B) promotion of economic growth;
(C) improvement of the physical shape and layout of public
housing;
(D) environmental improvement;
(E) urban land use policies, including those that promote
smart growth;
(F) reduction of poverty concentration;
(G) mobility improvements for residents; and
(H) establishment of positive incentives for resident self-
sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower
residents;
(3) for any highway, bridge, or road project--
(A) regional or national significance;
(B) promotion of economic growth;
(C) reduction in traffic congestion;
(D) environmental improvement;
(E) urban land use policies, including those that promote
smart growth; and
(F) mobility improvements; and
(4) for any water project--
(A) regional or national significance;
(B) promotion of economic growth;
(C) health benefits from the associated projects, including
health care cost reduction due to removal of pollutants; and
(D) environmental benefits.
(e) Determination Among Projects of Different
Infrastructure Types.--The Bank shall establish, by rule,
comprehensive criteria for allocating qualified status among
different types of infrastructure projects for purposes of
this Act--
(1) including--
(A) a full view of the project benefits, as compared to
project costs;
(B) a preference for projects that have national or
substantial regional impact;
(C) a preference for projects which leverage private
financing, including public-private partnerships, for either
the explicit cost of the project or for enhancements which
increase the benefits of the project;
(D) an understanding of the importance of balanced
investment in various types of infrastructure, as emphasized
in the current allocation of Federal resources between modes;
and
(E) an understanding of the importance of diverse
investment in infrastructure in all regions of the country;
and
(2) that do not eliminate any project based on size, but
rather allow for selection of the projects that are most
meritorious.
(f) Process and Personnel for Creating Ratings Process.--
(1) In general.--The ratings processes described in this
section shall be subject to Federal notice and rulemaking
procedures.
(2) Participation by other agency personnel.--The ratings,
and development of the ratings process, shall be conducted by
personnel on detail to the Bank from the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and
other relevant departments and agencies from among
individuals who are familiar with and experienced in the
selection criteria for competitive projects. The Bank shall
reimburse those departments and agencies for the staff which
are on detail to the Bank.
(g) Compliance With Other Applicable Law.--Projects
receiving financial assistance from the Bank under this
section shall comply with applicable provisions of Federal
law and regulations, including--
(1) for transit, requirements that would apply to a project
receiving funding under section 5307 of title 49, United
States Code;
(2) for public housing, requirements that would apply to a
project receiving funding from a grant under section 24 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v);
(3) for roads and bridges, requirements that would apply to
a project that receives funds apportioned under section
104(b)(3) of title 23, United States Code; and
(4) for water, requirements that would apply to a project
that receives funds through a grant or loan under--
(A) section 103 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5303);
(B) section 1452 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300j-12); or
(C) section 601 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1381), as that section applied before the
beginning of fiscal year 1995.

[[Page S10618]]

(h) Authority To Determine Funding.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Bank shall determine the
appropriate Federal share of funds for each project described
in subsection (g) for purposes of this Act.

SEC. 203. DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCING PACKAGE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which the Board determines appropriate financing packages for
qualified infrastructure projects under section 202, the
Board shall notify the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate.
(b) Financing Packages.--The Board is authorized--
(1) to act as a centralized entity to provide financing for
qualified infrastructure projects;
(2) to issue general purpose infrastructure bonds, and to
provide direct subsidies to qualified infrastructure projects
from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds;
(3) to issue project-based infrastructure bonds for the
financing of specific qualified infrastructure projects;
(4) to provide loan guarantees to State or local
governments issuing debt to finance qualified infrastructure
projects, under rules prescribed by the Board, in a manner
similar to that described in chapter 6 of title 23, United
States Code;
(5) to issue loans, at varying interest rates, including
very low interest rates, to qualified project sponsors for
qualified projects;
(6) to leverage resources and stimulate public and private
investment in infrastructure; and
(7) to encourage States to create additional opportunities
for the financing of infrastructure projects.
(c) General Purpose and Infrastructure Bonds.--General
purpose and project-based infrastructure bonds issued by the
Bank under this Act shall be subject to such terms and
limitations as may be established by rules of the Bank, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.
(d) Bond Obligation Limit.--The aggregate outstanding
amount of all bonds authorized to be issued under this Act
may not exceed $60,000,000,000.
(e) Full Faith and Credit.--Any obligation issued by the
Bank under this Act shall be an obligation supported by the
full faith and credit of the United States.
(f) Limitation on Funds From Bond Issuance.--Not more than
1 percent of funds resulting from the issuance of bonds under
this Act may be used to fund the operations of the Bank.

SEC. 204. COUPON NOTES FOR HOLDERS OF INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.

(a) Issuance of Coupon Notes.--Under regulations prescribed
by the Bank, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, there may be a separation (including at issuance)
of the ownership of an infrastructure bond and the
entitlement to the interest with respect to such bond (in
this section referred to as a ``coupon note''). In case of
any such separation, such interest shall be allowed to the
person who on the payment date holds the instrument
evidencing the entitlement to the interest, and not to the
holder of the bond.
(b) Redemption of Coupon Notes.--A coupon note may be used
by the owner thereof for the purpose of making any payment to
the Federal Government, and shall be accepted for such
purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to rules
issued by the Bank, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury.

SEC. 205. EXEMPTION FROM LOCAL TAXATION.

Bonds and other obligations issued by the Bank, and the
interest on or credits with respect to its bonds or other
obligations, shall not be subject to taxation by any State,
county, municipality, or local taxing authority.

TITLE III--STUDIES AND REPORTS

SEC. 301. REPORT; DATABASE.

(a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Board
shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate a report describing the activities of
the Board, for the fiscal year covered by the report,
relating to--
(1) the evaluations of qualified infrastructure projects
under section 202; and
(2) the financing packages of qualified infrastructure
projects under section 203.
(b) Database.--The Bank shall develop, maintain, and update
a publicly-accessible database that contains--
(1) a description of each qualified infrastructure project
that receives funding from the Bank under this Act--
(A) by project mode or modes;
(B) by project location;
(C) by project sponsor or sponsors; and
(D) by project total cost;
(2) the amount of funding that each qualified
infrastructure project receives from the Bank under this Act;
and
(3) the form of financing that each qualified
infrastructure project receives from the Bank under section
203.

SEC. 302. STUDY AND REPORT ON INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
MECHANISMS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the
Board shall conduct a study evaluating the effectiveness of
each Federal financing mechanism that is used to support an
infrastructure system of the United States.
(b) Requirements.--A study conducted under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) evaluate the economic efficacy and transparency of each
financing mechanism used by--
(A) the Bank to fund qualified infrastructure projects; and
(B) each agency and department of the Federal Government to
support infrastructure systems, including--
(i) infrastructure formula funding;
(ii) user fees; and
(iii) modal taxes; and
(2) contain recommendations for improving each funding
mechanism evaluated under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1) to increase the economic efficacy and
transparency of the Bank, and each agency and department of
the Federal Government, to finance infrastructure projects in
the United States.
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which
the Board completes the study conducted under subsection (a),
the Board shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate, a report containing each
evaluation and recommendation contained in the study.

SEC. 303. GAO REPORT.

Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate, a report evaluating the activities of
the Bank for the fiscal years covered by the report,
including--
(1) the evaluations of qualified infrastructure projects
under section 202; and
(2) the financing packages of qualified infrastructure
projects under section 203.
____

Center for Strategic &

International Studies,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2007.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dodd and Senator Hagel: I am writing to
commend you for your leadership in helping to restore
America's deteriorating physical infrastructure. You both
have demonstrated great foresight and vision in leading on
this important issue.
Three years ago, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies launched a study effort under the leadership of
former Ambassador Felix Rohatyn and former Senator Warren
Rudman. The CSIS Commission on Public Infrastructure issued a
declaration of guiding principles for the revitalization of
our infrastructure. We were proud that you joined in that
declaration. Signatories included senators, governors, and
business leaders, all recognizing the need for action.
You have acted. While CSIS cannot endorse specific
legislation, we can congratulate you as leaders. From the
very first days of our republic, our national leaders saw the
need for public investment in productive infrastructure.
Public investment produced wealth-generating private sector
activity, paying back the public investment many times over.
The commission also called for infrastructure investments
made through a rigorous cost-benefit process. Too much public
investment in recent years has been earmarked for projects
that have not gone through an analytic justification. Your
leadership here is also most welcome.
I travel extensively and see how infrastructure investments
are transforming the developing world. Faced by this
competition, America needs to make public infrastructure a
comparable priority as a national re-investment to ensure our
future prosperity.
Thank you for your leadership. This is the kind of vision
that built America to greatness in the past and will be our
path to prosperity in the future.
Sincerely,
John J. Hamre,
President and CEO.
____

August 1, 2007.
As co-chairmen of the CSIS Commission on Public
Infrastructure, we strongly support the National
Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007.
Introduced by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, this
bipartisan legislation will reverse decades of shortchanging
our infrastructure and help restructure the federal role by
allocating costs and financing more fairly and rationally.
The legislation also will help ensure that infrastructure
spending is unencumbered by political interference that
neglects regional and national priorities. The Act will
establish a policy structure for making infrastructure
investments that meet our country's critical needs.
The Infrastructure Bank Act will stimulate new, long-term
investments in infrastructure that will increase national
productivity and improve our standard of living. The proposed
Infrastructure Bank Act also will increase the ability of the
private sector to play a central role in infrastructure
provision and will report on the economic efficacy and
transparency of all current federal financing methods. We
urge that it be passed into law.

[[Page S10619]]

____
ASCE,

American Society of Civil Engineers,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2007.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dodd, Senator Hagel: I am writing on behalf of
the more than 140,000 members of the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) to applaud your joint sponsorship of
the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. This
legislation is a major step forward in providing meaningful
financial assistance to the nation's failing infrastructure.
As you know, ASCE concluded in our 2005 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure that the nation's infrastructure
deserved an overall grade of ``D.'' We said then that
America's aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the
economy and quality of life in every state, city, and town in
the nation. In addition, we estimated that it will take an
investment of $1.6 trillion over a five-year period to bring
the nation's existing infrastructure into good working order.
Little of significance has changed in the two years since we
issued that dismal grade, and establishing a long-term
development and maintenance plan remains a pressing national
priority.
In creating the National Infrastructure Bank to evaluate
and finance ``capacity-building'' infrastructure projects of
substantial regional and national significance, the bill
would prime the pump to begin meeting the staggering
investment needs for our infrastructure. We believe the
National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 will begin the
process of replacing and maintaining economically vital
infrastructure systems across the nation. This nation cannot
afford to wait much longer to invest significant sums in its
infrastructure, and your bill will lead the way.
Please do not hesitate to contact Brian Pallasch, ASCE
Director of Government Relations, or Michael Charles, Senior
Manager of Government Relations, of our Washington office if
we can be of any assistance in passing this important
legislation.
Sincerely yours,
Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE,
Executive Director.
____

National Construction Alliance,

Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Dodd and Hagel: The National Construction
Alliance represents three of the largest construction unions,
the Laborers' International Union of North America, the
International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
representing over 1.7 million members.
We want to go on record in support of your National
Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007.
We fully understand the need and responsibility we have to
our nation and to our members to find a way to fund
substantial regional and significant national infrastructure
projects.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in
making the Dodd/Hagel National Infrastructure Bank Act of
2007 a permanent part of the solution to funding our nation's
most important infrastructure projects.
Sincerely,
Raymond J. Poupore,
Executive Vice President.
____

Goldman, Sachs & Co.

New York, New York, July 27, 2007.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Dodd and Senator Hagel: Thank you for the
opportunity to review your proposed National Infrastructure
Bank Act of 2007. Goldman Sachs shares your concern about our
nation's aging infrastructure and its negative effects on our
economy and our environment, and we strongly agree with you
about the need to encourage additional infrastructure
investment. We believe enactment of your legislation would
help spur significant new investment in this area and thereby
help address this urgent national problem.
We support the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 and
thank you for your leadership on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Tracy R. Wolstencroft.
____

American Public Transportation

Association,

Washington DC, August 1, 2007.
Hon. Christopher Dodd,
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Dodd and Hagel: On behalf of the more than
1,500 member organizations of the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), I want to applaud your
proposal to create a National Infrastructure Bank. As we look
to the future, high-quality public transportation service
must be available to more Americans and in more communities.
Public transportation helps to reduce congestion and
increases mobility. Transit also significantly reduces energy
consumption, saving more than 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline
every year. Americans are choosing to ride transit in record
numbers, taking more than 10.1 billion trips in 2006.
Unfortunately, only 54 percent of households have access to
transit of any kind as they plan their daily travel.
Much of the success of public transportation is due to
federal investment in public transportation infrastructure,
and the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank would
extend valuable new federal resources to transit investment.
The innovative financing and investment tools of a National
Infrastructure Bank would aid the development and expansion
of fixed guideway systems. These major projects require
significant investments, but they are crucial to attracting
new riders. Federal support for new starts has helped to
finance 127 new fixed guideway systems and system extensions
which have gone into service since 1995. Looking ahead, such
systems are more necessary than ever to address rapidly
growing levels of congestion and to meet additional demands
for travel. According to an APTA survey, new capital funds
are needed for some 280 projects that will add 4,044 system
miles of fixed guideway transit.
If we expect our surface transportation infrastructure
system to continue to provide a competitive edge for the
United States, federal, state and local investment in public
transportation is necessary, and new financing mechanisms
like the National Infrastructure Bank must be investigated.
APTA thanks you for your commitment to the further expansion
of public transportation, and we look forward to working with
you to advance your proposal.
Sincerely yours,
William W. Millar,
President.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 1927. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain
acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other
purposes; read the first time.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 1927

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 ``Protect America Act of
2007''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
INFORMATION.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
105 the following:

``CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES

``Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic
surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to
encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably
believed to be located outside of the United States.

``ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING
PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

``Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the
Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General,
may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition
of foreign intelligence information concerning persons
reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the
Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General
determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
``(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for
determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence
information under this section concerns persons reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States, and such
procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to
section 105C of this Act;
``(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic
surveillance;
``(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign
intelligence information from or with the assistance of a
communications service provider, custodian, or other person
(including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified
person of such service provider, custodian, or other person)
who has access to communications, either as they are
transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is
being or may be used to transmit or store such
communications;
``(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain
foreign intelligence information; and
``(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect
to such acquisition activity meet the definition of
minimization procedures under section 101(h).
``This determination shall be in the form of a written
certification, under oath, supported as appropriate by
affidavit of appropriate officials in the national security
field occupying positions appointed by the President, by and
with the consent of the Senate, or the Head of any Agency of
the Intelligence Community, unless immediate action by the
Government is required and time does not permit the
preparation of a certification.

[[Page S10620]]

In such a case, the determination of the Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General shall be reduced to a
certification as soon as possible but in no event more than
72 hours after the determination is made.
``(b) A certification under subsection (a) is not required
to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or
property at which the acquisition of foreign intelligence
information will be directed.
``(c) The Attorney General shall transmit as soon as
practicable under seal to the court established under section
103(a) a copy of a certification made under subsection (a).
Such certification shall be maintained under security
measures established by the Chief Justice of the United
States and the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed
unless the certification is necessary to determine the
legality of the acquisition under section 105B.
``(d) An acquisition under this section may be conducted
only in accordance with the certification of the Director of
National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral
instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a
certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the
Attorney General. The Director of National Intelligence and
the Attorney General shall assess compliance with such
procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate under section 108(a).
``(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition
under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and
Attorney General may direct a person to--
``(1) immediately provide the Government with all
information, facilities, and assistance necessary to
accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect
the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of
interference with the services that such person is providing
to the target; and
``(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence
any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished
that such person wishes to maintain.
``(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing
rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or
assistance pursuant to subsection (e).
``(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive
issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may
invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a)
to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall
issue an order requiring the person to comply with the
directive if it finds that the directive was issued in
accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful.
Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the
court as contempt of court. Any process under this section
may be served in any judicial district in which the person
may be found.
``(h)(1)(A) A person receiving a directive issued pursuant
to subsection (e) may challenge the legality of that
directive by filing a petition with the pool established
under section 103(e)(1).
``(B) The presiding judge designated pursuant to section
103(b) shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A)
to one of the judges serving in the pool established by
section 103(e)(1). Not later than 48 hours after the
assignment of such petition, the assigned judge shall conduct
an initial review of the directive. If the assigned judge
determines that the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge
shall immediately deny the petition and affirm the directive
or any part of the directive that is the subject of the
petition. If the assigned judge determines the petition is
not frivolous, the assigned judge shall, within 72 hours,
consider the petition in accordance with the procedures
established under section 103(e)(2) and provide a written
statement for the record of the reasons for any determination
under this subsection.
``(2) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside
a directive may grant such petition only if the judge finds
that such directive does not meet the requirements of this
section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not
modify or set aside the directive, the judge shall
immediately affirm such directive, and order the recipient to
comply with such directive.
``(3) Any directive not explicitly modified or set aside
under this subsection shall remain in full effect.
``(i) The Government or a person receiving a directive
reviewed pursuant to subsection (h) may file a petition with
the Court of Review established under section 103(b) for
review of the decision issued pursuant to subsection (h) not
later than 7 days after the issuance of such decision. Such
court of review shall have jurisdiction to consider such
petitions and shall provide for the record a written
statement of the reasons for its decision. On petition for a
writ of certiorari by the Government or any person receiving
such directive, the record shall be transmitted under seal to
the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review
such decision.
``(j) Judicial proceedings under this section shall be
concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of
proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and
statements of reasons for decision, shall be maintained under
security measures established by the Chief Justice of the
United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and
the Director of National Intelligence.
``(k) All petitions under this section shall be filed under
seal. In any proceedings under this section, the court shall,
upon request of the Government, review ex parte and in camera
any Government submission, or portions of a submission, which
may include classified information.
``(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action
shall lie in any court against any person for providing any
information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a
directive under this section.
``(m) A directive made or an order granted under this
section shall be retained for a period of not less than 10
years from the date on which such directive or such order is
made.''.

SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF
PROCEDURES.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
105B the following:

``SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURES

``Sec. 105C. (a) No later than 120 days after the
effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit
to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures
by which the Government determines that acquisitions
conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute
electronic surveillance. The procedures submitted pursuant to
this section shall be updated and submitted to the Court on
an annual basis.
``(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of
this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall
assess the Government's determination under section
105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to
ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B
do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review
shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is
clearly erroneous.
``(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not
clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the
continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that
the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an
order directing the Government to submit new procedures
within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B
that are implicated by the court's order.
``(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under
subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b).
If such court determines that the order was properly entered,
the court shall immediately provide for the record a written
statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition
of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record
shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the
United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such
decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under
subsection (c) of this section may continue during the
pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition
for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the
Supreme Court of the United States.''.

SEC. 4. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

On a semi-annual basis the Attorney General shall inform
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives, concerning acquisitions under this section
during the previous 6-month period. Each report made under
this section shall include--
(1) a description of any incidents of non-compliance with a
directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of
National Intelligence under section 105B, to include--
(A) incidents of non-compliance by an element of the
Intelligence Community with guidelines or procedures
established for determining that the acquisition of foreign
intelligence authorized by the Attorney General and Director
of National Intelligence concerns persons reasonably to be
outside the United States; and
(B) incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to
whom the Attorney General and Director of National
Intelligence issue a directive under this section; and
(2) the number of certifications and directives issued
during the reporting period.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 103(e) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``501(f)(1)'' and
inserting ``105B(h) or 501(f)(1)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``501(f)(1)'' and
inserting ``105B(h) or 501(f)(1)''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in the first
section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 105 the following:

``105A.Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the
United States.
``105B.Additional procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions
concerning persons located outside the United States.
``105C. Submission to court review of procedures.''.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROCEDURES.

(a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided, the
amendments made by this Act

[[Page S10621]]

shall take effect immediately after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(b) Transition Procedures.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of
such order, and, at the request of the applicant, the court
established under section 103 (a) of such Act (50 U.S.C.
1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts
and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order
under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable
effective date of this Act. The Government also may file new
applications, and the court established under section 103(a)
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications
pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the
requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in
effect on the day before the effective date of this Act. At
the request of the applicant, the court established under
section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)), shall extinguish any extant
authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical
search entered pursuant to such Act. Any surveillance
conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection
shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of
this Act.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Obama, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 1928. A bill to amend section 1977A of the Revised Statutes to
equalize the remedies available under that section; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues in
introducing the Equal Remedies Act of 2007 to repeal the caps on the
amount of damages available in employment discrimination cases under
the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
This legislation will end the glaring inequality in the current
Federal antidiscrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 gave
women, religious minorities, and disabled workers the right to recover
compensatory and punitive damages for intentional employment
discrimination, but only up to certain specified monetary limits. By
contrast, victims of such discrimination on the basis of race or
national origin can recover damages without such limitations, because
they can bring their cases under another statute. The Equal Remedies
Act will remove this inequity by eliminating the caps on such damages
under current law.
The caps were included in the 1991 act as part of a compromise that
the first President Bush would sign. That legislation also reversed a
series of Supreme Court decisions that had rolled back other basic
civil rights protections and made it more difficult for working
Americans to challenge discrimination. The 1991 Act as a whole
represented a significant advance in the ongoing battle to eliminate
discrimination in the workplace.
But, it's long past time to end the double standard that consigns
women, religious minorities, and the disabled to second-class remedies
under the civil rights laws.
The caps are especially unfair, because they deny adequate remedies
to the most severely injured victims of discrimination. For example, a
woman who needs extensive medical treatment as a result of severe
sexual harassment, such as an assault, she will be limited to receiving
only partial compensation for her injury.
The goal of providing damages is to hold employers accountable and to
make victims whole to the greatest extent possible for the
discrimination they suffered. The current limit prevents accountability
and keeps the victim from obtaining full relief.
The caps serve no justifiable purpose. They shield the worst
employers from the full consequences of the most outrageous acts of
discrimination. The deterrent purpose of damages fails when employers
know that their liability is limited.
Take, for example, Sharon Deters and her case against Equifax Credit
Information Services. Sharon suffered constant sexual taunts and
insults from her coworkers. Her supervisor praised her harassers'
behavior and allowed it to continue. The jury in her case was so
outraged by her employer's conduct that it awarded her $1 million in
punitive damages, finding that such an award was necessary to get her
employer's attention and make it change its ways. The caps on damages,
however, reduced Sharon's award to $300,000.
Results like that are not fair. They fail to fulfill the statutory
purpose of such damages provision, which is to deter further
violations. By passing the Equal Remedies Act of 2007, Congress will be
affirming the basic principle of equal justice for all Americans. I
urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important change.
______

By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 1929. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study
of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator
McCain to introduce the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed Feasibility Study
Act. This important piece of legislation is designed to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives to augment the water
supplies in a critical area of southern Arizona in the Sierra Vista
Sub-watershed, which is home to a congressionally protected riparian
area known as the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area,
SPRNCA, the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, and nearly
76,000 residents.
SPRNCA, which protects nearly 43 miles of the San Pedro River, serves
as a principal passage for the migration of approximately 4 million
birds. It also provides crucial habitat for 100 species of birds, 81
species of mammals, 43 species of reptiles and amphibians, and two
threatened species of native fish. The Nature Conservancy has called
the area one of the ``last great places on earth.''
Fort Huachuca, which is adjacent to SPRNCA, plays a critical role in
this country's national security by, among other things, training
soldiers in military intelligence. It also is the largest employer in
the area, contributing greatly to the economy of Cochise County and the
State of Arizona.
In recent years, the Fort has done an exemplary job of implementing
water conservation and recharge measures as part of its
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, since 1995,
it has reduced its groundwater pumping by more than 50 percent.
Nevertheless, water levels in certain areas of the regional aquifer
in the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed are still declining due to natural
causes and development near Sierra Vista. Because SPRNCA and the fort
could be negatively impacted by these declining water levels, a 2007
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Appraisal level study concluded that
augmenting the local water supply is necessary. To that end,
Reclamation's study recommended several augmentation alternatives for
further study, all of which are supported by the Upper San Pedro
Partnership, a congressionally recognized consortium of 21 local,
state, and Federal agencies and private organizations.
The legislation I am introducing today would authorize the Secretary
to conduct a feasibility study of the alternatives recommended by
Reclamation for further study. The legislation would also authorize
appropriations for the Federal share of the study's costs. Importantly,
the non-Federal cost share would be at least 55 percent, indicating the
non-Federal parties' strong commitment to the study.
The feasibility study authorized under this legislation is the next
step in the process of determining how to best address the water
challenges facing the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed. Consequently, I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Biden, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Obama):
S. 1930. A bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to prevent
illegal logging practices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about a year ago, a group of hardwood
plywood

[[Page S10622]]

manufacturers came to me with a problem, Chinese hardwood plywood
imports were threatening their businesses. They raised a whole host of
issues, from tariff misclassification to subsidies to fraudulent
labeling to illegal logging. These unfair and illegal practices were
lowering the costs of the Chinese hardwood plywood imports, giving them
an unfair advantage over U.S. hardwood plywood and putting American
companies in jeopardy of going out of business and the folks that they
employ out of work.
Since that time, I have been working to level the playing field for
Oregon hardwood plywood manufacturers and protect the jobs of the
workers that they employ. I have met with the Department of Commerce,
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Customs and Border Patrol,
and the International Trade Commission and urged them to investigate
these issues and, where appropriate, act to address them. They have,
raising these troubling practices in diplomatic negotiations, opening
investigations, and even filing a case before the World Trade
Organization targeting Chinese subsidies that benefit the hardwood
plywood industry, among others.
Today, with the support of industry, labor, and the environmental
community, I am proud to introduce the Combat Illegal Logging Act of
2007 to halt the trade in illegal timber and timber products. This act
will help to level the playing field, not just for Oregon hardwood
plywood manufacturers affected by Chinese imports, but for all American
manufacturers across the country struggling to compete against
imported, low-priced wood and wood products harvested from illegal
sources.
Equally important, the act helps address an illegal logging crisis.
From the Amazon to the Congo Basin, from Sulawesi to Siberia, illegal
logging is destroying ecosystems. It is gutting local economies. It is
annihilating ways of life. Because of the speed and violence with which
illegal logging is occurring, failing to curb its effects now may
result in irreversible damage.
The bill that I am introducing today can help curb illegal logging
and thwart its devastating consequences.
The Lacey Act currently regulates trade in fish, wildlife, and a
limited subset of plants by making it unlawful to ``import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase'' any that are taken,
possessed, transported or sold in violation of any State law or, with
respect to fish and wildlife only, any foreign law. The Combat Illegal
Logging Act of 2007 would expand the Lacey Act so that violations of
foreign law that apply to plants and plant products fall within its
protections. It would also specify the types of foreign law violations
that trigger Lacey Act liability, laws intended to prevent theft or
ensure the legal right to harvest the plants. Finally, the act would
create a declaration requirement to facilitate the Lacey Act's
enforcement for timber without placing an undue burden upon law-abiding
businesses.
The declaration requirements provide basic transparency for wood
shipments. The declaration will have critical value for combating
illegal logging by 1. encouraging importers to ask basic questions
regarding the origin of their timber and timber products; 2. providing
information at the point of import that will allow authorities with
limited resources to do efficient, targeted inspections and
enforcement; and 3. helping enforcement agents to immediately identify
``low-hanging fruit,'' such as timber expressly prohibited to be
exported.
The act will definitely change the way that folks who are importing
illegally harvested timber and wood products do business, this is its
intended purpose. But for the many companies who already play by the
rules, the act's requirements should result in minimal changes to the
way they operate. Moreover, when the act's impact from a
competitiveness standpoint is factored in, the effect is a net positive
for these companies. This act changes the incentives to reward due
diligence, a sound long-term business strategy from any perspective.
This bill is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by
stakeholders that many might view as strange bedfellows. The principal
negotiators of the compromise, the American Forest & Paper Association,
the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency,
deserve a tremendous amount of credit for sticking with this and
finding a solution that everyone could support. I applaud them for
their hard work, the maturity with which they approached the issue, and
the respect that they showed each other throughout the process. Their
conduct is a model for how things should work in Washington.
I would also like to applaud the work of several of my colleagues in
the House, Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Wexler, and Congressman
Weller, who introduced their own illegal logging bill, the Legal Timber
Protection Act, earlier this year. I understand that their bill may be
taken up by the House Natural Resources Committee this fall and I am
hopeful that they will substitute the broadly supported text of the
Combat Illegal Logging Act for their bill, paving the way for the
enactment of this important piece of legislation.
I would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator Kerry, Senator
Snowe, and Senator Feingold for agreeing to be original cosponsors of
the bill. I would also like to thank the following organizations, in
addition to the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood
Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency for endorsing
the bill: Center for International Environmental Law, Conservation
International, Defenders of Wildlife, Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics,
Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Greenpeace, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Hardwood Lumber Association, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest
Alliance, Sierra Club, Society of American Foresters, Sustainable
Furniture Council, The Nature Conservancy, Tropical Forest Trust,
United Steelworkers, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife
Fund.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1930

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 ``Combat Illegal Logging Act
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL LOGGING PRACTICES.

The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 are amended--
(1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 3371)--
(A) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Plant.--
``(1) In general.--The term `plant' means any wild member
of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, and
products thereof.
``(2) Exclusions.--The term `plant' excludes any common
food crop or cultivar that is a species not listed--
``(A) in the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at
Washington on March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); or
``(B) as an endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).'';
(B) in subsection (h), by inserting ``also'' after ``plants
the term''; and
(C) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the following:
``(j) Take.--The term `take' means--
``(1) to capture, kill, or collect; and
``(2) with respect to a plant, also to harvest, cut, log,
or remove.'';
(2) in section 3 (16 U.S.C. 3372)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) any plant--
``(i) taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation
of any foreign law or any law or regulation of any State that
protects plants or that regulates--

``(I) the theft of plants;
``(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or
other officially protected area;
``(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated
area; or
``(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to,
required authorization;

[[Page S10623]]

regulation of any State that protects plants or that
regulates--

``(ii) taken, transported, or exported without the payment
of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required by
any foreign law or by any law or regulation of any State; or
``(iii) exported or transshipped in violation of any
limitation under any foreign law or by any law or regulation
of any State; or''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Plant Declarations.--
``(1) In general.--Effective 180 days from the date of
enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any
person to import any plant unless the person files upon
importation where clearance is requested a declaration that
contains--
``(A) the scientific name of any plant (including the genus
and species of the plant) contained in the importation;
``(B) a description of--
``(i) the value of the importation; and
``(ii) the quantity, including the unit of measure, of the
plant; and
``(C) the name of the country from which the plant was
taken.
``(2) Declaration relating to plant products.--Until the
date on which the Secretary promulgates a regulation under
paragraph (5), a declaration relating to a plant product
shall--
``(A) in the case in which the species of plant used to
produce the plant product that is the subject of the
importation varies, and the species used to produce the plant
product is unknown, contain the name of each species of plant
that may have been used to produce the plant product; and
``(B) in the case in which the species of plant used to
produce the plant product that is the subject of the
importation is commonly taken from more than 1 country, and
the country from which the plant was taken and used to
produce the plant product is unknown, contain the name of
each country from which the plant may have been taken.
``(3) Review.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall review the
implementation of each requirement described in paragraphs
(1) and (2).
``(4) Report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
on which the Secretary completes the review under paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees
of Congress a report containing--
``(i) an evaluation of--

``(I) the effectiveness of each type of information
required under paragraphs (1) and (2) in assisting
enforcement of section 3; and
``(II) the potential to harmonize each requirement
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) with other applicable
import regulations in existence as of the date of the report;

``(ii) recommendations for such legislation as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate to assist in the
identification of plants that are imported into the United
States in violation of section 3; and
``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the provisions of
subsection (a) and (f) on--

``(I) the cost of legal plant imports; and
``(II) the extent and methodology of illegal logging
practices and trafficking.

``(B) Public participation.--In conducting the review under
paragraph (3), the Secretary shall provide public notice and
an opportunity for comment.
``(5) Promulgation of regulations.--Not later than 180 days
after the date on which the Secretary completes the review
under paragraph (3), the Secretary may promulgate
regulations--
``(A) to limit the applicability of any requirement
described in paragraph (2) to specific plant products; and
``(B) to make any other necessary modification to any
requirement described in paragraph (2), as determined by the
Secretary based on the review under paragraph (3).''; and
(3) in section 7(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 3376(a)(1)), by striking
``section 4'' and inserting ``section 3(f), section 4,''.
______

By Mr. TESTER:
S. 1931. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to ensure that
development of certain Federal oil and gas resources will occur in a
manner that protects water resources and respects the rights of surface
owners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surface
Owner Protection Act to help protect private property on split estates.
The Western U.S. is experiencing a boom in oil and gas exploration
that will contribute to the domestic supply of energy in this country,
improve our National security and help control energy costs for
American consumers. But if it is not done right oil and gas leasing can
be damaging to wildlife, pollute our water, and scar the land.
Furthermore, in many areas of the West the land is in split estates
where mineral rights are owned by the Federal Government, but the
surface is owned by a private land owner. Oftentimes the process of oil
and gas leasing and drilling does not adequately involve surface owners
or protect their agricultural livelihoods that are disrupted during
energy development. Split estates cover 58 million acres in the U.S.,
and 11.7 million acres in Montana alone. That is just slightly smaller
than the size of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware combined.
In states like Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado there has been a rapid
increase in the number of leases and the amount of acreage that the
Bureau of Land Management is approving for oil and gas exploration. It
is expected that coal-bed methane development will bring tens of
thousands of wells in coming decades. The rapid growth is causing
general unease in some areas because surface owners have few rights
when it comes to oil and gas exploration on their land.
Too often surface owners have no idea that their minerals are owned
by someone else or when they are going to be leased. The legislation I
am introducing today is meant to better involve surface owners in the
process of oil and gas exploration by requiring notification to surface
owners when their land is going to be leased, require operators to
replace any water that disrupts other users, and requires bonding for
the reclamation of surface land. Surface owners should have a clear
role in each step of the process from the day a lease sale is announced
to the time when the rigs are gone and reclamation work is completed.
Critics of this measure will argue that it gets in the way of
drilling. I would say that oil and gas drilling should not get in the
way of farmers and ranchers going about their business without clear
legal guidelines. The protection of private property rights is
crucially important as a personal freedom in the U.S. and we must take
steps to protect them.
I encourage members of this body to support this measure as we move
forward because I believe that we can improve the way we conduct oil
and gas leases on split estates. A better balance between oil and gas
interests and surface owners is possible, but we need to make sure that
we develop our energy resources in an appropriate manner with respect
to private property owners.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Baucus,
Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 1933. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide
grants to small public drinking water systems; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, small rural water systems are facing
compliance deadlines, and need assistance without burdensome matching
funding requirements. The Small Community Drinking Water Funding Act
that I am introducing today with Senators Ensign, Boxer, Murray,
Clinton, Baucus, Sanders, and Conrad, amends the Safe Drinking Water
Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
to establish a Small Public Water System Assistance Program. This
program is to support small water systems in complying with national
primary drinking water regulations, and includes a program for Indian
tribes.
The smallest public water systems, which serve fewer than 3,300
people, represent 85 percent of all public water systems. Small public
water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people represent 94 percent of
all public water systems. Small communities throughout Nevada would
benefit from a grant program designed to provide funding for water
quality projects without a difficult matching requirement; and Federal
programs in effect as of the date of enactment of this act do not
adequately meet the needs of small communities in Nevada with respect
to public water systems. The Small Community Drinking Water Funding Act
will authorize $750,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2014. Nevada should be able to secure a substantial portion of this
funding because of the State's rural water systems needs.

[[Page S10624]]

The purpose of this bill is to establish a program to provide grants
to small public water systems to meet applicable national primary
drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Second,
maintain water costs at a reasonable level for the communities served
by small public water systems. Third, obtain technical assistance to
develop the capacity to sustain operations over the long term.
This legislation is intended to ensure that our Nation's small,
disadvantaged communities have access to the financial help they need
to provide safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water with the
authorization of $750 million annually for 7 years starting next year.
The Small Community Safe Drinking Water Act provides substantial
flexibility to States.
Nevada's small communities are facing a drinking water infrastructure
crisis. These communities, and other small communities nationwide,
confront increasing demand for clean, reliable, and affordable drinking
water. But it is simply too costly for small communities, alone, to
address this water infrastructure crisis.
They need a financial helping hand from the Federal Government.
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. 1933

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 Community Drinking
Water Funding Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in some cases, drinking water standards in effect and
proposed as of the date of enactment of this Act can place
large financial burdens on public water systems, especially
systems that serve fewer than a few thousand people;
(2) some small public water systems have experienced water
contamination problems that may pose a significant risk to
the health of water consumers;
(3) small communities are concerned about improving
drinking water quality;
(4) the limited scientific, technical, and professional
resources of many small communities make understanding and
implementing regulatory requirements very difficult;
(5) small communities often struggle to meet water quality
standards because of difficulty in securing funding;
(6) small communities often lack a tax base or
opportunities to benefit from economics of scale and
therefore face very high per capita costs in improving
drinking water quality;
(7) the smallest public water systems, which serve fewer
than 3,300 people, represent 85 percent of all public water
systems;
(8) small public water systems serving fewer than 10,000
people represent 94 percent of all public water systems;
(9) small communities would benefit from a grant program
designed to provide funding for water quality projects
without a substantial matching requirement; and
(10) Federal programs in effect as of the date of enactment
of this Act do not adequately meet the needs of small
communities with respect to public water systems.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a
program to provide grants to small public water systems to--
(1) meet applicable national primary drinking water
regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f
et seq.);
(2) maintain water costs at a reasonable level for the
communities served by small public water systems; and
(3) obtain technical assistance to develop the capacity to
sustain operations over the long term.

SEC. 3. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--Section 1401(14) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(14)) is amended in
the second sentence by striking ``1452,'' and inserting
``1452 and part G,''.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``PART G--SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE

``SEC. 1471. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Eligible activity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible activity' means an
activity concerning a small public water system (including
obtaining technical assistance) that is carried out by an
eligible entity for a purpose consistent with section
1473(c)(1) or 1474(c)(1), as appropriate.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `eligible activity' does not
include any activity to increase the population served by a
small public water system, except to the extent that the
State under section 1473(b)(1) or the Administrator under
section 1474(b)(1) determines an activity to be necessary
to--
``(i) achieve compliance with a national primary drinking
water regulation; and
``(ii) provide a water supply to a population that, as of
the date of enactment of this part, is not served by a safe
public water system.
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
small public water system that--
``(A) is located in a State or an area governed by an
Indian Tribe; and
``(B)(i) if located in a State, serves a community that,
under affordability criteria established by the State under
section 1452(d)(3), is determined by the State to be--
``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
``(II) a community the State expects to become a
disadvantaged community as a result of carrying out an
eligible activity; or
``(ii) if located in an area governed by an Indian Tribe,
serves a community that is determined by the Administrator,
under criteria published by the Administrator under section
1452(d)(3) and in consultation with the Secretary, to be--
``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
``(II) a community the Administrator expects to become a
disadvantaged community as a result of carrying out an
eligible activity.
``(3) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State that has--
``(A) adopted, and is implementing, an approved operator
certification program under section 1419; and
``(B) established affordability criteria under section
1452(d)(3) for use in identifying disadvantaged communities.
``(4) Program.--The term `Program' means the Small Public
Water System Assistance Program established under section
1472(a).
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of
the Indian Health Service.
``(6) Small public water system.--The term `small public
water system' means a public water system (including a
community water system and a noncommunity water system) that
serves a population of 10,000 or fewer.

``SEC. 1472. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the
Administrator shall establish within the Environmental
Protection Agency a Small Public Water System Assistance
Program.
``(b) Duties.--The head of the Program shall--
``(1) in accordance with section 1474, establish and
administer a small public water system assistance program
for, and provide grants to, eligible entities located in
areas governed by Indian Tribes, for use in carrying out
eligible activities;
``(2) identify, and prepare annual prioritized lists of,
activities for eligible entities located in areas governed by
Indian Tribes that are eligible for grants under section
1474;
``(3) provide funds to States for use in establishing small
public water system assistance programs under section 1473
that award grants to eligible entities to carry out eligible
activities; and
``(4) prepare, and submit to the Administrator, the reports
required under subsection (d).
``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) States.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) through (D)
and paragraph (2)(A), for each fiscal year, the
Administrator, through the head of the Program, using the
most recent available needs survey conducted by the
Administrator under section 1452(h), shall allocate the funds
made available to carry out the Program for the fiscal year
among eligible States based on the ratio that--
``(i) the financial need associated with treatment projects
for small public water systems in the State; bears to
``(ii) the total financial need associated with treatment
projects for all small public water systems in all States.
``(B) Additional requirements.--Any additional financial
needs of small public water systems associated with the cost
of treatment projects needed to comply with a national
primary drinking water regulation that is promulgated after
the most recent needs survey conducted under section 1452(h)
shall be factored into the determination of financial need
under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) for each
fiscal year.
``(C) Minimum allocation.--An allocation of funds to a
State for a fiscal year under subparagraph (A), taking into
consideration any additional financial needs described in
subparagraph (B), shall be in an amount that is at least 1
percent of the amount of funds available for that fiscal
year.
``(D) Redistribution if nonuse.--If a State does not
qualify for, or fails to request, funds allocated to the
State under subparagraph (A) in any fiscal year, the
Administrator shall redistribute the funds among the States
that--
``(i) request funds for that fiscal year; and
``(ii) are eligible to receive the funds under subparagraph
(A) for that fiscal year.
``(2) Indian tribes.--
``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year, in accordance with
subparagraph (B), 3 percent of the total amount of funds made
available to carry out the Program for the fiscal year shall
be allocated by the Administrator to provide grants to
eligible entities that are located in areas governed by
Indian Tribes

[[Page S10625]]

through the program established under section 1474(a).
``(B) Use of funds.--
``(i) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator
shall award, on a competitive basis, not less than 1.5
percent of the funds allocated under subparagraph (A) to
nonprofit technical assistance organizations, to be used for
the purposes of--

``(I) assisting the Administrator in preparing the list
required under section 1474(b) (including assisting the
Administrator in identifying the highest priority eligible
activities for eligible entities located in areas governed by
Indian Tribes for which a grant under section 1474 may be
used);
``(II) assisting eligible entities located in areas
governed by Indian Tribes in--

``(aa) assessing needs relating to eligible activities; and
``(bb) identifying available sources of funding to meet the
cost-sharing requirement of section 1474(f)(1); and

``(III) assisting eligible entities located in areas
governed by Indian Tribes that receive funding under section
1474 in--

``(aa) planning, implementing, and maintaining eligible
activities that are funded under that section; and
``(bb) preparing reports required under section 1474(h).
``(ii) Consultation.--Each nonprofit technical assistance
organization that receives funds under clause (i) shall
consult with the Administrator, through the head of the
program, before carrying out any activity for the purposes
described in subclauses (II)(aa) and (III)(aa) of that
clause.
``(iii) No funds for lobbying expenses.--None of the funds
made available to a nonprofit technical assistance
organization under clause (i) shall be used to pay lobbying
expenses.
``(3) Program.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator may
use not more than 0.1 percent of the funds made available to
carry out the Program to pay reasonable costs incurred in the
administration of the Program.
``(d) Reports.--Not later than January 1, 2009, and
annually thereafter through January 1, 2014, the
Administrator shall--
``(1) submit, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate, a report that, for the
preceding fiscal year--
``(A) lists the eligible activities for eligible entities,
as prepared under sections 1473(b)(1) and 1474(b)(1), located
in areas governed by Indian Tribes and in each State
receiving funds under this part;
``(B) identifies the number of grants awarded by each
State, and by the Administrator to eligible entities located
in areas governed by Indian Tribes, under this part;
``(C) identifies each eligible entity that received a grant
to carry out an eligible activity;
``(D) identifies the amount of each grant provided to an
eligible entity to carry out an eligible activity; and
``(E) describes each eligible activity funded by such a
grant (including the status of the eligible activity); and
``(2) make the report under paragraph (1) available to the
public.

``SEC. 1473. STATE SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive funding under
this part, a State shall--
``(1) be an eligible State;
``(2) not later than July 1, 2008 (if funding is sought for
fiscal year 2008) or not later than September 30 of any of
fiscal years 2008 through 2014 (if funding is sought for the
following fiscal year), establish a small public water system
assistance program--
``(A) under which the requirements of subsection (b),
oversight, and related activities (other than financial
administration) with respect to the program are
administered--
``(i) in the case of a State that is exercising primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems, by the
State agency having primary responsibility for administration
of the State program under section 1413; and
``(ii) in the case of a State that is not exercising
primary enforcement authority for public water systems, by a
State agency selected by the Governor of the State; and
``(B) that meets the requirements of this section; and
``(3) for each fiscal year for which funding is sought
under this section--
``(A) in preparing an intended use plan under section
1452(b), after providing for public review and comment,
prepare an annual list of eligible activities for eligible
entities in the State in accordance with subsection (b); and
``(B) prepare and submit to the Administrator a request for
the funding, by such date and in such form as the
Administrator shall prescribe.
``(b) Program Priority Requirement.--
``(1) List of eligible activities.--A small public water
system assistance program established under subsection (a)
shall, for each fiscal year for which funding is sought,
identify, and, using the priority criteria described in
paragraph (2) and considering the additional criteria
described in paragraph (3), list in descending order of
priority, eligible activities for eligible entities in the
State for which funds provided from a grant under this part
may be used.
``(2) Priority criteria.--In preparing the list under
paragraph (1), a small public water system assistance program
shall give priority for the use of grants to eligible
activities that--
``(A) address the most serious risk to human health;
``(B) are necessary to ensure compliance with national
primary water regulations applicable to eligible entities
under section 1412; and
``(C) assist systems most in need, as calculated on the
basis of median household income, under affordability
criteria established by the State under section 1452(d)(3).
``(3) Additional criteria.--In addition to the priority
criteria described in paragraph (2), a small public water
system assistance program shall, in preparing a list under
paragraph (1), consider giving additional priority to any
listed eligible activities that are to be carried out by
communities that form management cooperatives (including
management cooperatives between systems that do not have
connections).
``(c) Use of Funds.--Using any funds received by a State
under this section for a fiscal year, in accordance with the
list prepared under subsection (b), a small public water
system assistance program established by the State under
subsection (a)--
``(1) shall provide to an eligible entity, on a cost-shared
basis, a grant to be used for an eligible activity (including
source water protection) the purpose of which is compliance
with national primary drinking water regulations applicable
to the eligible entity under section 1412;
``(2) shall--
``(A) award, on a competitive basis, not less than 1.5
percent of the funds to nonprofit technical assistance
organizations to be used for the purposes of--
``(i) assisting the State in preparing the list required
under subsection (b) (including assisting the State in
identifying the highest priority eligible activities for
eligible entities located in the State for which a grant
under this section may be used); and
``(ii) assisting eligible entities in--

``(I) assessing needs relating to eligible activities;
``(II) identifying available sources of funding to meet the
cost-sharing requirement of subsection (f); and
``(III) planning, implementing, and maintaining any
eligible activities of the eligible entities that receive
funding under this section;

``(B) require each nonprofit technical assistance
organization that receives funds under subparagraph (A) to
consult with the State, through the head of the small public
water assistance program, before carrying out any activity
for the purposes described in subclauses (I) and (III) of
subparagraph (A)(ii); and
``(C) require that none of the funds made available to a
nonprofit technical assistance organization under
subparagraph (A) be used to pay lobbying expenses; and
``(3) may use not to exceed 1 percent of the funds
allocated to the State to pay reasonable costs incurred in
the administration of the small public water system
assistance program.
``(d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--For each fiscal year,
not more than 5 percent of the funds received by an eligible
entity under this section may be used to obtain technical
assistance in planning, implementing, and maintaining
eligible activities that are funded under this section.
``(e) Limitation on Receipt of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
grant under this section shall not be provided to an eligible
entity that, as determined by the State--
``(A) does not have the technical, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure compliance with national
primary drinking water regulations applicable to the eligible
entity under section 1412; or
``(B) is in significant noncompliance with any applicable
national primary drinking water regulation.
``(2) Exception for receipt of grant.--An eligible entity
described in paragraph (1) may receive a grant under this
section only--
``(A) if the State determines that use of the grant will
ensure compliance with national primary drinking water
regulations applicable to the eligible entity under section
1412;
``(B)(i) to restructure or consolidate the facility to
achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking
water regulations; or
``(ii) in a case in which restructuring or consolidation of
the facility is not practicable, if the State determines
that--
``(I) the eligible entity has made a good faith effort to
achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking
water regulations; and
``(II) the eligible entity is adhering to an enforceable
schedule for achieving those regulations; and
``(C) in a case in which paragraph (1)(A) applies to an
eligible entity, and the eligible entity agrees to undertake
feasible and appropriate changes in operations (including
changes in ownership, management, accounting, rates,
maintenance, consolidation, provision of an alternative water
supply, or other procedures), if the State determines that
the measures are necessary to ensure that the eligible entity
has the technical, managerial, and financial capability to
comply with applicable national primary drinking water
regulations over the long term.
``(3) Review.--Before providing assistance under this
section to an eligible entity that

[[Page S10626]]

is in significant noncompliance with any national primary
drinking water regulation applicable to the eligible entity
under section 1412, the State shall conduct a review to
determine whether paragraph (1)(A) applies to the entity.
``(f) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Limit.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
share of the total cost of an eligible activity funded by a
grant under this section shall not exceed 80 percent.
``(B) Use of other federal funds.--To pay the portion of an
eligible activity that may not be funded by a grant under
this section, an eligible entity may use Federal financial
assistance other than assistance received under this section.
``(2) Waiver of cost-sharing requirement.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a State may
waive the requirement of an eligible entity to pay all or a
portion of the share of an eligible activity that may not be
funded by a grant under this section, based on a
determination by the State that the eligible entity is unable
to pay any or all of the share.
``(B) Limitation.--For each fiscal year in which a State
receives funding under this section, the total amount of
cost-share waivers provided by the State under subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed 30 percent of the amount of funding
received by the State for the fiscal year under section
1472(c)(1).
``(g) Unobligated Funds.--Any funds not obligated by the
State for a purpose consistent with subsection (c) within 1
year after the date of the allocation of the funds by the
Administrator under section 1472(c) shall be returned to the
Administrator for reallocation under that section.
``(h) Reports.--Not later than November 1 following each
fiscal year in which a State receives funding under this
section, the State shall--
``(1) submit to the Administrator a report that, for the
preceding fiscal year--
``(A) lists the eligible activities for eligible entities,
as prepared under subsection (b);
``(B) identifies the number of grants awarded by the State
small public water system assistance program to eligible
entities;
``(C) identifies each eligible entity that received a grant
to carry out an eligible activity;
``(D) identifies the amount of each grant provided to an
eligible entity to carry out an eligible activity; and
``(E) describes each eligible activity funded by such
grants (including the status of the eligible activity); and
``(2) make the report under paragraph (1) available to the
public.

``SEC. 1474. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR
INDIAN TRIBES.

``(a) Establishment.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the
Administrator shall establish a small public water system
assistance program for Indian Tribes, through which eligible
entities located in areas governed by the Indian Tribe may
receive grants for eligible activities under this part.
``(b) Program Priority Requirement.--
``(1) List of eligible activities.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the
head of the small public water system assistance program for
Indian Tribes, in consultation with the Secretary, shall, for
each fiscal year, identify, and, using the priority criteria
described in paragraph (2) and considering the additional
criteria described in paragraph (3), list in descending order
of priority, eligible activities for eligible entities
located in areas governed by Indian Tribes for which funds
provided from a grant under this part may be used.
``(B) Coordination.--
``(i) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall ensure that the list under subparagraph
(A) is coordinated with any needs assessment conducted under
section 1452(i)(4).
``(ii) Additional consideration.--Any additional financial
needs of small public water systems located in areas governed
by Indian Tribes that are associated with the cost of
complying with a national primary drinking water regulation
that is promulgated after the most recent needs survey
conducted under section 1452(i)(4) shall be factored into the
determination of financial need for, and prioritization of,
eligible activities under this section.
``(2) Priority criteria.--In preparing the list under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall give priority for the
use of grants to eligible activities that--
``(A) address the most serious risk to human health;
``(B) are necessary to ensure compliance with national
primary water regulations applicable to eligible entities
under section 1412; and
``(C) assist systems most in need, as calculated on the
basis of median household income, under affordability
criteria published by the Administrator under section
1452(d)(3).
``(3) Additional criteria.--In addition to the priority
criteria described in paragraph (2), the Administrator shall,
in preparing a list under paragraph (1), consider giving
additional priority to any listed eligible activities that
are to be carried out by communities that form management
cooperatives (including management cooperatives between
systems that do not have connections).
``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Using funds allocated under section
1472(c)(2)(A), the small public water system assistance
program established under subsection (a) shall provide to an
eligible entity located in an area governed by an Indian
Tribe, on a cost-shared basis, a grant to be used for an
eligible activity (including source water protection) the
purpose of which is compliance with national primary drinking
water regulations applicable to the eligible entity under
section 1412.
``(2) Allocation of grant funding.--For each fiscal year,
taking into consideration the funding allocation under
section 1472(c)(2)(A) for the fiscal year, the head of the
small public water assistance program established under
subsection (a), in consultation with the Secretary, shall
provide grants under paragraph (1) for the maximum number of
eligible activities for which the funding allocation makes
assistance available, based on the priority assigned by the
Administrator to eligible activities under subsection (b).
``(d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--For each fiscal year,
not more than 5 percent of the funds received by an eligible
entity under this section may be used to obtain technical
assistance in planning, implementing, and maintaining
eligible activities that are funded under this section.
``(e) Limitation on Receipt of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
grant under this section shall not be provided to an eligible
entity that, as determined by the Administrator--
``(A) does not have the technical, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure compliance with national
primary drinking water regulations applicable to the eligible
entity under section 1412; or
``(B) is in significant noncompliance with any applicable
national primary drinking water regulation.
``(2) Exception for receipt of grant.--An eligible entity
described in paragraph (1) may receive a grant under this
section only--
``(A) if the Administrator determines that use of the grant
will ensure compliance with national primary drinking water
regulations applicable to the eligible entity under section
1412;
``(B)(i) to restructure or consolidate the facility to
achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking
water regulations; or
``(ii) in a case in which restructuring or consolidation of
the facility is not practicable, if the Administrator
determines that--
``(I) the eligible entity has made a good faith effort to
achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking
water regulations; and
``(II) the eligible entity is adhering to an enforceable
schedule for achieving those regulations; and
``(C) in a case in which paragraph (1)(A) applies to an
eligible entity, and the eligible entity agrees to undertake
feasible and appropriate changes in operations (including
changes in ownership, management, accounting, rates,
maintenance, consolidation, provision of an alternative water
supply, or other procedures), if the Administrator determines
that the measures are necessary to ensure that the eligible
entity has the technical, managerial, and financial
capability to comply with applicable national primary
drinking water regulations over the long term.
``(3) Review.--Before providing assistance under this
section to an eligible entity that is in significant
noncompliance with any national primary drinking water
regulation applicable to the eligible entity under section
1412, the Administrator shall conduct a review to determine
whether paragraph (1)(A) applies to the entity.
``(f) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Limit.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
share of the total cost of an eligible activity funded by a
grant under this section shall not exceed 80 percent.
``(B) Use of other federal funds.--To pay the portion of an
eligible activity that may not be funded by a grant under
this section, an eligible entity may use Federal financial
assistance other than assistance received under this section.
``(2) Waiver of cost-sharing requirement.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may waive the
requirement of an eligible entity to pay all or a portion of
the share of eligible activity that may not be funded by a
grant under this section based on a determination by the
Administrator that the eligible entity is unable to pay any
or all of the share.
``(B) Limitation.--For each fiscal year, the total amount
of cost-share waivers provided by the Administrator under
subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 30 percent of the amount of
funding allocated to eligible entities located in areas
governed by Indian Tribes for the fiscal year under section
1472(c)(2)(A).
``(g) Unobligated Funds.--Any funds not obligated by the
small public water system assistance program established
under subsection (a) for a purpose consistent with section
1472(c)(2)(B) and subsection (c) within 1 year after the date
of allocation of the funds by the Administrator under section
1472(c)(2)(A) shall be returned to the Administrator for
reallocation under that section.
``(h) Reports.--Not later than November 1 following each
fiscal year in which an Indian Tribe receives funding under
this section,

[[Page S10627]]

the Indian Tribe shall submit to the Administrator a report
that, for the preceding fiscal year--
``(1) identifies the number of grants awarded to eligible
entities located in areas governed by the Indian Tribe;
``(2) identifies each such eligible entity that received a
grant to carry out an eligible activity;
``(3) identifies the amount of each grant provided to such
an eligible entity to carry out an eligible activity; and
``(4) describes each eligible activity funded by such
grants (including the status of the eligible activity).

``SEC. 1475. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2014.''.

____________________