The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S1710-S1717 on Feb. 7, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 510. A bill to specify that the 100 most populous urban areas of the United States, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall be eligible for grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act,'' which addresses eligibility for the Department of Homeland Security's Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) grant program.
This bill will improve the existing grant award process by broadening the number of urban areas eligible to apply. In Fiscal Year 06, the Department of Homeland Security made arbitrary decisions about areas' need for homeland security funding, threatening the eligibility of eleven worthy areas to apply for future grants.
The eligibility of Sacramento and San Diego, in my State of California, were threatened in this way. Sacramento is the capital of the most populous State in the Nation and home to dozens of critical Federal and State government buildings. In addition, much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunication systems are managed from Sacramento. The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh-largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, tourist attractions, and major military installations.
My bill would ensure that the 100 most populous urban areas of the country are eligible to apply for UASI grants each year. The Department of Homeland Security would then have the discretion to award funds to as many applicants as it deems worthy and needy.
The bill would also require that the Department employ a
``sensitivity analysis'' in its grant process, to deal with uncertainty in the mathematical models that it uses to evaluate the risk of terrorism for urban areas. The Department's leadership could make better-informed policy decisions if it used a sensitivity analysis to better understand the effects of policy judgments in estimating risk each year.
I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this bill, with its important implications for making our Nation more secure against terrorism.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. 511. A bill to provide student borrowers with basic rights, including the right to timely information about their loans and the right to make fair and reasonable loan payments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to give rights to student borrowers. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act will provide student borrowers with five basic rights to protect them when trying to repay their loans.
Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have grown, resulting in more students borrowing and at higher levels. In 1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds are faced with this debt.
Unlike other debt, young people take out student loans to invest in themselves. Because these loans help to pay for college, student loans can help people earn more money over the course of their lifetimes and offer students greater choices in their careers. Student borrowers must take the responsibility of repaying their debt seriously so that future generations of students can have the chance to invest in themselves.
However, too many borrowers in New York, and around the country, are overly burdened or treated unfairly as they repay their student loans. That is why I am introducing the Student Borrower's Bill of Rights Act.
This bill will make it easier for students to repay loans and give them a basic set of enforceable rights. This bill would give student borrowers the right to fair monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes, as well as access to fair interest rates and fees. This bill would also give students the right to shop in a free marketplace for their lender and to borrow without exploitation. Finally, the bill will give students access to better information about their loans to provide students with better options during repayment.
The unfortunate truth is that student loan debt may even prevent borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates cite alarming student loan debt as the reason for not pursuing a graduate degree. Most disturbingly, the burden of student loan debt alone can force graduates out of important, but low-paying professions, such as social workers, teachers and police officers. Our Nation cannot remain competitive in the global economy if these trends continue.
I am happy to report that two of the provisions from the Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act of the 109th Congress were enacted into law through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense 2006. These provisions, a repeal of the single holder rule and consolidation between loan programs, will enable borrowers to choose lenders with acceptable income-sensitive repayment terms when consolidating student loans.
We need to make sure that student loans do not prevent students from following their dreams. It is in our Nation's economic interest to provide student borrowers with effective rights to make repayment of student loans easier.
The rights found in my bill are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 512. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlaring the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, Utah, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, not long ago, Utahns suffered a long and devastating drought, from which we have not fully recovered. The drought has instilled in us the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce an important bill that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply.
The Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2007 would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The bill would give the Bureau of Reclamation access to the dam to study it and make adjustments as necessary to cater to the ever growing needs of Utah citizens. This is no ordinary dam. It is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water.
Thousands of Utahns rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. In my view, expanding the dam is a simple and inexpensive way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it.
Moreover, last year, the Watkins Dam began to leak slightly. If the dam were to breach, it would flood many hundreds of acres of farm and grazing land, which would spell an agricultural disaster. This legislation would provide the resources and the opportunity to address quickly that looming problem, as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 512
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 ``Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Arthur V. Watkins Dam is a feature of the Weber Basin Project, which was authorized by law on August 29, 1949.
(2) Increasing the height of Arthur V. Watkins Dam and construction of pertinent facilities may provide additional storage capacity for the development of additional water supply for the Weber Basin Project for uses of municipal and industrial water supply, flood control, fish and wildlife, and
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY.
The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, is authorized to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of Arthur V. Watkins Dam for the development of additional storage to meet water supply needs within the Weber Basin Project area and the Wasatch Front. The feasibility study shall include such environmental evaluation as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and a cost allocation as required under the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485 et seq.).
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 513. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revive previous authority on the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to address interference with State and Federal law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, Congress quietly made it easier for this President or any President to declare martial law. That's right: In legislation added at the Administration's request to last year's massive Defense Authorization Bill, it has now become easier to bypass longtime posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the Federal Government's use of the military, including a federalized National Guard, to perform domestic law enforcement duties. That change runs counter to our founding principles, to the optimal use of our superb National Guard here at home, and to whatever sensible reforms are needed to improve our Nation's emergency response capabilities.
Today Senator Bond and I are introducing legislation to repeal these unwarranted and perilous changes, which were made to a little-known law called the Insurrection Act. Our amendment replaces every word, comma, and period from the original act and returns it to its original form. Repealing this ill-considered change in the Insurrection Act would allow Congress to have a more orderly, thoughtful, open and consultative discussion on whether such sensitive and massive powers should be changed, if at all. It is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue.
The Insurrection Act is a Reconstruction-era law that provides the major exemption from posse comitatus--the legal doctrine that bars the use of the military for law enforcement directed at the American people here at home. The Insurrection Act is designed to ensure that Federal laws are enforced and to ensure that American citizens' basic constitutional rights are respected and protected. When the Insurrection Act is invoked, the President can--without the consent of the respective governors--federalize the National Guard and use it, along with the entire military, to carry out law enforcement duties. Treading as this does across basic constitutional issues relating to separation of power and to state and local sovereignty, this is a sweeping grant of authority to the President. Because the use of the military for domestic law enforcement is so sensitive an issue, the Act has been invoked only sparingly since it was enacted.
The primary reason that the law has been invoked so rarely is that there has been an inherent tension in the way it was crafted. Before it was changed last year, the law was purposefully ambiguous about when the President could invoke the Act in cases beyond a clear insurrection or when a state clearly violated Federal law in its actions. Because there was this useful ambiguity--a constructive friction in the law--a President until now would have to use the power with great caution, and with the impetus for appropriate consultation.
Yet by the time committee work was completed in the House and the Senate on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization Bill, the law had been changed and that useful ambiguity had vanished. In addition to the cases of insurrection, the Act can now be invoked to restore public order after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or--and this is extremely broad--``other condition.'' Restoring public order has suddenly become an entirely new purpose for the Insurrection Act. And, as if to underscore this fundamental change, the conference committee changed the name of the Act from ``Insurrection'' to
``Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.''
This significant change was made without consulting the Nation's Governors, mayors, sheriffs, or the National Guard Adjutants General. It was made without consulting the other relevant policy committees in the Senate and the House. It was merely slipped in, at the Administration's request, as rider to a bill that was hundreds of pages long. And when the Nation's Governors learned of the change and expressed their strong opposition, they were ignored, and this facilitation of presidential ability to federalize the National Guard--
even over the objections of the Nation's Governors--remained in the bill that was signed into law by President Bush.
Now this President and future Presidents can more easily take control of the National Guard and use our entire military apparatus for law enforcement at home. In a situation like another Katrina or even a more contained incident like a terrorist incident, the President will be able to bring in Federal troops and take away control from the Governors, the Emergency Managers, the Sheriffs, and the State Adjutants General who know their communities best and are responsible for responding.
What we should be doing instead is buttressing the response abilities of these local and State officials. We should ensure every State has a state-of-the-art emergency operations center, that our first responders have the best equipment and training, and that the National Guard has adequate equipment and available people at home to provide support. Any Federal assets--military or otherwise--that might come into a State should be in a supporting and not commanding role. The local officials who know their communities are in the best positions to control the situation, not the President or the military.
Some have argued that the changes made were only a clarification of existing law or that the Insurrection Act already gave the power to the President to use the military for law enforcement in an emergency. I strongly disagree with that explanation, and so do the Governors, Adjutants General, and a host of other officials. They see it, as Senator Bond and I see it, as a tangible and troubling expansion of the President's powers and a parallel reduction in State sovereignty. But if some believe the original Act already gave the President this expansive power, they should not object to bringing the law back to its original form.
Repeal of the recent changes to the Insurrection Act will help ensure that our National Guard and larger emergency response capabilities remain strong. Repeal is crucial to ensuring that our Governors and local officials remain in control and that they are consulted when anyone considers overriding their authority. Repeal is simply essential to ensuring the military is not used in a way that offends and endangers some of our more cherished values and liberties.
We enter this effort with the strong support of Governors and of the National Guard community, including the National Governors Association, the National Guard Association, the Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard. I ask unanimous consent that support letters from the National Governors Association, the Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard be printed at this point in the Record.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Last year's Insurrection Act rider reflects the general lack of close oversight that has taken a toll on our system of government. I hope the days of rubberstamping are over, and I hope the Senate will quickly remedy this situation by considering and passing the bill that we introduce today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
National Guard Association of
the United States, Inc.,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2007.Hon. Patrick Leahy,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.Hon. Christopher Bond,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Leahy and Bond: The National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) is pleased to support your efforts to repeal those provisions of Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
(Public Law 109-364) enacted in the 109th Congress.
We believe those provisions removed the governors of the several states from their constitutional role as the commanders in chief of their respective states' National Guard forces in responding to domestic emergencies, in both an unnecessary and unwarranted manner.
We further believe that the exploitation of the language of the Insurrection Act as a surreptitious method to gain special presidential authority where clearly the Congress has never intended the federal executive to hold sway is
``creative'' but ``poor'' public policy. Please spare no effort to reverse this dangerous precedent.
Thank you for your reasoned and forthright protection of the prerogatives of the governors and the National Guard.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
Brigadier General (Ret),
President.
____
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, February 5, 2007.Hon.Patrick J. Leahy,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.Hon. Christopher ``Kit'' Bond,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Bond: Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 109-364) unnecessarily expanded the President's authority to federalize the National Guard during certain emergencies and disasters. The nation's governors opposed the inclusion of this section in the bill because responsibility for responding to disasters and other local emergencies to assure the security and wellbeing of our residents along; with managing the Guard within a state must rest with the governor. The changes made in Section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act undermine governors' authority over the Guard, place the safety and welfare of citizens in jeopardy and should be repealed.
Unless activated in purely federal service, the National Guard is and should remain under state control with governors as commanders-in-chief. The dual mission of the Guard, a combat ready force that can be called on by the President and a first responder in domestic emergencies or disasters under the command and control of the governor, requires that federal law clearly delineate chains of command for each mission. The changes made to the ``Insurrection Act'' by Section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act are likely to confuse the issue of who commands the Guard during a domestic emergency. By granting the President specific authority to usurp the Guard during a natural disaster or emergency without the consent of a governor, Section 1076 could result in confusion and an inability to respond to residents' needs because it calls into question whether the governor or the President has primary responsibility during a domestic emergency.
The Insurrection Act, prior to passage of the National Defense Authorization Act served the nation well as an extraordinary remedy that allowed the President to take control of the Guard in the most rare and exceptional of cases. Despite the role of governors as commander-in-chief of the Guard in their states, Section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act was drafted without consultation with governors and without full discussion or debate regarding the ramifications of such a change on domestic emergency response. We urge Congress to repeal the provision in Section 1076 of the Act and open a dialogue with governors regarding how to best enhance the effectiveness of the Guard in responding to domestic disasters and emergencies.
Sincerely,Governor Michael F. Easley,
Co-Lead on the National Guard.Governor Mark Sanford,
Co-Lead on the National Guard.
____
Adjutants General Association of the United States,
Washington, DC. 2001, February 7, 2007.Hon. Patrick Leahy,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.Hon. Kit Bond,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
The Adjutants General Association of the United States
(AGAUS) represents the 54 Adjutants General of the fifty states, three territories, and District of Columbia who are responsible for training and readiness of Army and Air National Guard units under their jurisdiction. We are united in support of your legislation that repeals all language contained in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that significantly altered existing law known as the Insurrection Act.
The language in the NDAA seriously upset the delicate balance between Governors and the President in determining the authority under which the National Guard will be used to respond to domestic conditions endangering citizens. The language significantly broadens the President ability to declare martial law and mobilize the National Guard under national command without consulting with the Governors. It may in fact cause factions to pressure the President into ill advised actions because the constructive ambiguity of the original language which encourages consultation with Governors no longer exists. For the National Guard this can mean being federalized prematurely thereby losing important capabilities available under State Active Duty and Title 32.
The National Guard has proven capable of operating flexibly and responsively when retained under governor control. This is well documented from the airport security mission in the aftermath of 9/11 to sending 6,000 National Guard Soldiers and Airmen to the southwest border in 2006 (with over 50,000 citizen-soldiers rapidly deployed under EMAC and Title 32 to support Hurricane Katrina recovery sandwiched in between). The language in NDAA 2207 would likely discourage using the National Guard in these innovative, responsive, and cost effective ways.
NDAA 2007 enabled something completely unnecessary without committee or floor debate in either legislative chamber and with explicit opposition from the Governors. Your bill restores the Insurrection Act to a proper balance. Expect willing and energetic support from the AGAUS.
Sincerely,
Roger P. Lempke,
Major GeneralPresident.
____
EANGUS,
Alexandria, VA, February 6, 2007.Hon. Patrick Leahy,U.S. Senate Washington, DC.Hon. Christopher Bond,U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) is the only military service association that represents the interests of every enlisted soldier and airmen in the Army and Air National Guard. With a constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and airmen, their families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across this nation.
On behalf of EANGUS, and the soldiers and airmen it represents, I'd like to communicate our support for legislation to repeal the changes to the Insurrection Act as passed in Public Law 109-364, Section 1076, and to restore the authority of the Governors as our founding fathers designed over 230 years ago.
Public Law 109-364 stripped the nation's Governors of their rightful authority to use the militia of the United States
(to wit, the National Guard) in times of natural disasters and major public emergencies. Congress made this move without any consultation with those Governors, duly elected by the people of this great nation. It was an obvious knee-jerk reaction to the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina in 2005, yet without merit.
We applaud you for taking legislative steps to repeal this law, and to restore to the Governors their rightful authority over the militia when not in Federal service. The people of America have a unspoken need for the National Guard in times of public emergencies, and Washington is too far removed from the challenges in each state. We look forward to working with your staff as this legislation works its way into law.
Working for America's Best!
MSG Michael P. Cline, USA (Ret),Executive Director.
____
S. 513
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVIVAL OF PREVIOUS AUTHORITY ON USE OF ARMED
FORCES AND MILITIA TO ADDRESS INTERFERENCE WITH
STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
(a) Repeal of Amendments Made by Public Law 109-364.--Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), and the amendments made by that section, are repealed.
(b) Revival of Previous Authority.--The provisions of chapter 15 of title 10, United States Code, that were amended by section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as such provisions were in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, are hereby revived.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Heading amendment.--The heading of chapter of 15 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION''.
(2) Clerical amendments.--(A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
``15. Insurrection...........................................331''.....
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:
``333. Interference with State and Federal law.''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 515. A bill to provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were denied that determination; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing the Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007. This bill establishes a new cause of action for those African-American farmers who filed late claim petitions as required by the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree, but whose petitions were rejected.
These rejections have effectively barred African-American farmers from the one process that was established to bring closure to the claims of discrimination by African-American farmers, many of which have been pending for decades.
My bill attempts to remedy what appears to be a lack of sufficient notice, indicated by the late applicants. It helps bring justice for farmers who have historically been discriminated against while being mindful of the constitutional constraints on Congress's authority. This bill will provide a new cause of action that will assist those putative claimants whose claims have never been evaluated on the merits.
Studies conducted by the USDA revealed the depth and impact of this disparate treatment. In 1994, the Department of Agriculture commissioned a study to analyze the treatment of minorities and women in farm programs and payments.
In 1997, Secretary Glickman commissioned the Civil Rights Action Task Force to look into allegations of racial discrimination in the agency's loan program. In conjunction with this the Inspector General conducted its own investigation into the allegations of disparate treatment.
Each report confirmed what African-American farmers already experienced first hand. USDA failed to act to adequately address these past wrongs. It took a class action lawsuit filed by African-American farmers in 1997 to get USDA to respond.
The resulting Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree was believed to be a turning point in this unfortunate history. Hopes were high that African-American farmers would finally be compensated for the history of injustice. The consent decree was intended to provide a swift resolution for the claims of discrimination that had gone unaddressed for decades.
Yet, in a sad twist, the process that was created to provide a forum for those whose claims had been shut out, has itself shut out more than 75,000 African American farmers who wish to have their claims of discrimination heard.
Hearings before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution revealed that almost 76,000 farmers who submitted late claim petitions were denied entry because they could not show that extraordinary circumstances prevented them from filing a timely complaint.
Despite the lack of knowledge about the consent decree, which was cited by more than half of these petitioners, lack of notice was not deemed an extraordinary circumstance under the consent decree. So these petitioners are left without any recourse to have their claims of discrimination heard on the merits. These people should be allowed to have their case heard.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 516. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the option of including combat pay when computing earned income; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to make the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act permanent. This measure corrects a discrepancy in the Tax Code that penalizes certain service men and women serving in combat situations.
To give my colleagues a bit of history and perspective on this: In 2003 I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of the committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how our Tax Code treats our military.
I was very pleased when they agreed to work with me, and was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the General Accounting Office, GAO. It was an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process.
The GAO raised many interesting findings but there was one especially important issue that demanded our immediate attention. In a nutshell service men and women who were serving in combat zones and receiving nontaxable combat pay were not able to also take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the Child Care Tax Credit.
The result was that thousands of our men and women serving in combat--serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe--were seeing a reduction or elimination of their EITC or child credit and in effect losing money. In other words, the Tax Code had the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones.
The GAO report characterized this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I saw it as just plain wrong and I am pleased to introduce legislation to fix this glitch.
In 2004, we passed the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allowed men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income and child tax credit benefits. In other words, they would be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits.
However, this legislation only made permanent the child tax credit benefit, while the earned income tax credit provision must be continuously extended.
As of December 2006, the earned income provision was extended for another year, but I believe we must work to permanently resolve this glitch and ensure our men and women in combat are fairly treated.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank cosponsors Senator John Warner and Senator Blanche Lincoln for their leadership and assistance to help gamer support for this bill.
The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this really affects. We're talking about troops that tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, those in lower pay grades, those who are married with children, and have little or no savings or spousal income.
The GAO analysis suggested that the amount of the tax benefit loss could be up to $4,500 for enlisted personnel and $3,200 for officers. This is real money--make or break money--to many of these families that are already under enormous stress.
I want to work in bipartisan fashion and permanently extend this tax provision. This bill corrects the problem and lets our troops, risking life and limb, know that while they are away fighting for us we will be here in the Senate fighting for them and their families.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 519. A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Schumer in introducing the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-
Online Act of 2007, otherwise known as the SAFE Act. This bill would clarify and strengthen the requirement that has been a Federal law for almost a decade for electronic communications providers to report images of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then law enforcement. Simply put, this bill is designed reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sexual exploitation.
This bill would state specifically what information must be reported by electronic communications providers to NCMEC; impose higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography; and require the Department of Justice to report on the number of investigation and convictions of sex offenders and purveyors of child pornography. In addition, the bill would make the use of the Internet for the exploitation of a child an aggravating factor to the underlying offense that would add 10 years imprisonment to a convicted offender's sentence.
Almost 20 years ago, President Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and called on the Center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation. Unfortunately, our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world via the Internet.
Technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography. Cyberspace is host to more than one million images of tens of thousands of children subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation, according to a report by the Texas State legislature. The same report estimated that the over 14 million pornography sites on the Internet house an estimated one million pornographic images of children with 200 new images being posted daily.
According to ECPAT International, a group dedicated to eliminating the sexual exploitation of children, the production and distribution of abuse images of children is estimated to be at least a 3 billion dollar business annually in the U.S. alone. Of all the child pornography images on the Internet, 55 percent are generated from the United States, according to the same group, but these images are also produced around the world.
Just today, the Associated Press reported that Austrian authorities uncovered a major international child pornography ring involving more than 2,360 suspects from 77 countries, including over 600 in the United States, who paid to view videos of young children being sexually abused. According to authorities, the children shown in the videos were under the age of 14 and could be heard screaming in fear.
This investigation would not have happened without the good work of an employee of a Vienna-based Internet file hosting service who noticed the pornographic material during a routine check and then approached authorities. The employee blocked access to the videos while recording the I.P. addresses of people who continued to try to download the material, and gave the details to authorities. Within a 24-hour period, investigators recorded more than 8,000 hits from 2,361 computer I.P. addresses in 77 countries ranging from Algeria to South Africa.
The Federal Government already has a system in place for electronic communications providers to report these images to NCMEC. The Center is directed by law to relay that information to local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been useful, but it is in need of several vital improvements.
Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the CyberTipline, but the current reporting system does not specify exactly what information should be reported. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce. This omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing I chaired last September, NCMEC testified that, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable.
This bill would address the problem by requiring that reporting companies convey a defined set of information to the Center, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require electronic communications providers to report specific information about any individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography. In addition, it would require reporting companies to provide NCMEC with the geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet.
To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days. The bill would help to ensure greater compliance with the child pornography reporting requirements under Federal law by increasing the penalties three-fold for knowing failure to report child pornography to NCMEC. It would also move the reporting requirement from title 42, which relates to the public's health and welfare, to title 18, our Federal criminal code. This is to underscore that a breach of the reporting obligations constitutes a violation of criminal law. In addition, the legislation would eliminate the legal liability of online service providers for actions taken to comply with the child pornography reporting requirements.
The goal of this legislation, is to ensure more thorough reporting of child pornography to NCMEC. I expect that more and better information provided to the Center will lead to a greater number of prosecutions and enhanced protection of our children. However, let me stress that this bill does not require surveillance by electronic communications providers or require that they monitor the content of any communication. The legislation also does not require electronic communications providers to affirmatively seek out child pornography. Rather, it requires online service providers to report child pornography when they become aware of it, either through a report from a subscriber or user, or through a discovery of the material by an employee. As a result, the reporting requirement would protect children while not imposing a financial or administrative burden on online service providers.
To emphasize the heinous nature of these crimes, this bill would make the use of the Internet in the commission of a crime of child exploitation an aggravating factor that would add 10 years to the offender's sentence. The Internet is likely the greatest invention of the 21st century; however, it has also allowed these children to be victimized again and again as these images are widely distributed via the Internet. The fight to protect our children from exploitation has moved from the playground to the Internet, and we must update our laws to reflect this reality.
To address the international nature of child pornography, the bill would permit NCMEC to share reports with foreign law enforcement agencies, subject to approval by the Department of Justice. In addition, the legislation would state the sense of Congress that the executive branch should make child pornography a priority when engaging in negotiations or talks with foreign countries.
The bill would authorize $25 million for our Nation's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, which is identical to the amount requested by the Administration in its FY 2008 budget. NCMEC, the National Sheriffs Association, and others believe that such funding would significantly improve the efforts of local, State and Federal law enforcement officials dedicated to identifying and prosecuting those who use the Internet to prey upon our Nation's children.
Lastly, in order to aid law enforcement, the bill would reiterate the position of the Administration that all suppliers of web site domain names should investigate and correct inaccurate data regarding registered domain names so that law enforcement can more easily locate the hosts of such vile pictures of children. To aid Congress in understanding the need for more resources or legislation to combat the proliferation and distribution of child pornography, the bill would require the Department of Justice to report on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions of crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.
This is the second bill Senator Schumer and I have introduced this session to protect our nation's children. Last month, we introduced the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual-Predators Act of 2007, known as the KIDS Act, which would establish a database of e-mail addresses and other Internet identifying information of convicted sex offenders. The database information would then be available to commercial social networking sites for the purpose of screening their sites' to ensure convicted sex offender are not using the site to prey on children.
Protecting our children is a top priority for all members of Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to eradicate the victimization and exploitation of our children, the most innocent members of society, by enacting the KIDS Act and the SAFE Act.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 520. A bill to enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating certain lower-elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, a bill to protect some of Washington's most unique and remarkable public lands for families today and for future generations.
For more than six years, citizens, community leaders, groups and organizations have worked together with Representative Rick Larsen and me to make this proposal a reality. I am proud to offer our bill here in the Senate on their behalf. This is the fourth time I've introduced this bill, and I'm really excited about finally moving this bill across the finish line this year.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act reflects the best values of my home State of Washington--environmental protection, stewardship of our land, and community partnership. It also respects the economic and recreational interests of the people of Snohomish County. Our bill will protect an important area while keeping it accessible for recreation and enjoyment today and for generations to come.
For many years, I've been concerned by the rapid growth taking place in Western Washington. It's no surprise that more people want to live and work in the region, but we need to make sure that development does not destroy the natural beauty that is such an important part of our State's identity and our quality of life. We also need to ensure that growth and development do not destroy native species of plants and animals that have flourished here for centuries.
So several years ago, I began to consider new wilderness legislation. I learned that we haven't added any new wilderness areas in Washington state since 1984. I knew that if we were going to protect public land, I wanted to do it in an inclusive way by seeking input from local communities and stakeholders and working with them to develop a sound proposal. I am proud to say that the fruits of our labor are now before the United States Senate. My partner in the House of Representatives, Congressman Larsen, and I worked alongside all of the local stakeholders every step of the way to select these particular areas in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest.
The Wild Sky Wilderness will protect wildlife and promote clean water by preserving the landscapes that host many native plants and animals. We can still find many of the species that have historically called this area home, but their populations are much smaller today. If these animals are going to be here centuries from now, we must protect their habitats. This wilderness designation is especially critical for threatened species of salmon, steelhead and trout, and it will protect the upper reaches of water to ensure prime habitat and clean water.
In addition, our bill ensures that the public will have access to these remarkable, protected places. It's estimated that 2.4 million people live nearby in King, Snohomish and Skagit counties. Our bill will ensure they have new recreational opportunities in the Wild Sky Wilderness. In this hectic, fast-paced time, more and more people and their families are turning to outdoor recreation on our public lands. This bill will provide new opportunities for the public to use this land by directing the U.S. Forest Service to develop a series of hiking and equestrian trails.
In addition to the environmental protections and recreational opportunities, the Wild Sky Wilderness Area will be good for the local economy. Every climber, hiker, hunter and angler setting out for the Wild Sky Wilderness will be stopping at hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and stores in the gateway communities of Index, Skykomish, Monroe, Miller River, Startup, Grotto, Baring, Sultan, and Gold Bar.
Over the years, so many people have worked hard to make this bill possible. I can't name all of them, but I do want to recognize one great leader who is not with us to see the progress she helped make possible, Karen Fant. Anyone involved in wilderness protection knows the legacy that Karen has left us through her years of advocacy for our state's natural places. Early on, Karen recognized the need to bring together and involve local people in efforts to protect wilderness. She co-founded and directed the Washington Wilderness Coalition, and she was instrumental in forming a statewide community of wilderness advocates.
To those who knew her--and especially those lucky enough to sample her famous cookies--Karen provided never-ending inspiration and enthusiasm to continue working to protect wilderness and wild lands in the Pacific Northwest and beyond.
I cannot summarize Karen's amazing four decades of service, but I think some of her many friends said it best when they wrote:
``There are thousands of miles of trails and millions of acres of wilderness that are protected due to her work and the work of others she organized to make a difference. As we walk these trails and gain renewal from these lands, we should all remember the work we shared and the fun and camaraderie we all experienced with Karen.''
With Karen's passing, we've lost a pioneer in the fight to protect our wild spaces, but thankfully she's left a clear trail and a generation of inspired, empowered advocates to continue her work.
I urge my colleagues to help my State take a great step forward in protecting our environment, improving recreation and supporting economic development by supporting the Wild Sky Wilderness Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 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. 520
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 ``Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM.
(a) Additions.--The following Federal lands in the State of Washington are hereby designated as wilderness and, therefore, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System: certain lands which comprise approximately 106,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal'' and dated February 6, 2007, which shall be known as the ``Wild Sky Wilderness''.
(b) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall file a map and a legal description for the wilderness area designated under this Act with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. The map and description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of Agriculture may correct clerical and typographical errors in the legal description and map. The map and legal description shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Subject to valid existing rights, lands designated as wilderness by this Act shall be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and this Act, except that, with respect to any wilderness areas designated by this Act, any reference in the Wilderness Act to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) To fulfill the purposes of this Act and the Wilderness Act and to achieve administrative efficiencies, the Secretary of Agriculture may manage the area designated by this Act as a comprehensive part of the larger complex of adjacent and nearby wilderness areas.
(b) New Trails.--
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with interested parties and shall establish a trail plan for Forest Service lands in order to develop--
(A) a system of hiking and equestrian trails within the wilderness designated by this Act in a manner consistent with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
(B) a system of trails adjacent to or to provide access to the wilderness designated by this Act.
(2) Within two years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall complete a report on the implementation of the trail plan required under this Act. This report shall include the identification of priority trails for development.
(c) Repeater Site.--Within the Wild Sky Wilderness, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use helicopter access to construct and maintain a joint Forest Service and Snohomish County telecommunications repeater site, in compliance with a Forest Service approved communications site plan, for the purposes of improving communications for safety, health, and emergency services.
(d) Float Plane Access.--As provided by section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the use of floatplanes on Lake Isabel, where such use has already become established, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be desirable.
(e) Evergreen Mountain Lookout.--The designation under this Act shall not preclude the operation and maintenance of the existing Evergreen Mountain Lookout in the same manner and degree in which the operation and maintenance of such lookout was occurring as of the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire lands and interests therein, by purchase, donation, or exchange, and shall give priority consideration to those lands identified as ``Priority Acquisition Lands'' on the map described in section 2(a). The boundaries of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and the Wild Sky Wilderness shall be adjusted to encompass any lands acquired pursuant to this section.
(b) Access.--Consistent with section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1134(a)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure adequate access to private inholdings within the Wild Sky Wilderness.
(c) Appraisal.--Valuation of private lands shall be determined without reference to any restrictions on access or use which arise out of designation as a wilderness area as a result of this Act.
SEC. 5. LAND EXCHANGES.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall exchange lands and interests in lands, as generally depicted on a map entitled
``Chelan County Public Utility District Exchange'' and dated May 22, 2002, with the Chelan County Public Utility District in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) If the Chelan County Public Utility District, within ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act, offers to the Secretary of Agriculture approximately 371.8 acres within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of Washington, the Secretary shall accept such lands.
(2) Upon acceptance of title by the Secretary of Agriculture to such lands and interests therein, the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the Chelan County Public Utility District a permanent easement, including helicopter access, consistent with such levels as used as of date of enactment, to maintain an existing telemetry site to monitor snow pack on 1.82 acres on the Wenatchee National Forest in the State of Washington.
(3) The exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated if Chelan County Public Utility District conveys title acceptable to the Secretary and provided there is no hazardous material on the site, which is objectionable to the Secretary.
(4) In the event Chelan County Public Utility District determines there is no longer a need to maintain a telemetry site to monitor the snow pack for calculating expected runoff into the Lake Chelan hydroelectric project and the hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin, the Secretary shall be notified in writing and the easement shall be extinguished and all rights conveyed by this exchange shall revert to the United States.
____________________
