Commission to Study the Potential Creation of the National Museum of the American Latino Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2739) to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call up this legislation which is comprised of 61 separate measures that were already considered by this body, packaged by the Senate, and sent back to us for further and final consideration. This is a bipartisan package, almost evenly split between bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans.

Further, I would note that 57 of the measures included in this package originated in the Committee on Natural Resources. In this regard, I salute the committee's Chairs who worked so hard on this legislation:

Raul Grijalva, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands; Grace Napolitano, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and Donna Christensen, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs.

In this body, these three Members did all of the heavy lifting, the hearings, the managing of the individual bills on the floor, the listening from other Members of this body that helped to make the package we are considering today possible.

The pending measures include new protections for wilderness, national parks, historic sites and trails, and precious water resources from sea to shining sea.

I will not speak to each and every provision of this legislation today but would like to highlight two in particular.

This bill will finally designate the long-awaited Wild Sky Wilderness in Washington State, championed by our colleague, Rick Larsen. As I noted last week when the House considered wilderness legislation for my home State of West Virginia, to be in a wilderness area is truly a humbling experience. To be part of designating the wilderness is even more humbling because wilderness is an effort to retain the landscape as God created it. And as with God's good graces, we are working toward designating new wilderness areas in West Virginia today.

Let this be the next-to-last action, other than the President's signature, on establishing the Wild Sky Wilderness in the State of Washington.

The other measure I would like to highlight would finally bring badly needed immigration, national security and labor protections for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Further, this legislation would also grant a nonvoting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives to the Northern Mariana Islands.

For too long, abuses took place in the CNMI, and for too long remedial legislation was held hostage in this body. Let this legislation bring forth a new dawn, the start of a new era with a delegate to this body, that the people of the CNMI's voices be heard.

Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Dr. Donna Christensen, for her great work on this matter.

There are other issues of note in this bill. It would expand parks in Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington and Idaho. It would improve visitor transportation options at Denali National Park and Acadia National Park. And it would expand and increase the authorization for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. Three new national heritage areas and nine existing areas will receive Federal assistance under this measure. Seven other areas will be examined as possible new park units.

This bill would also authorize Federal participation in new and expanded water recycling projects around the west, projects which will provide an estimated 52,600 acre-feet of water annually in an area experiencing severe drought.

It's a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge all Members to vote for this package.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of our Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I have already commended her profusely, but I want to once again thank the chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Donna Christensen, from the Virgin Islands for the hard work and long hours that she has put in on this legislation. I now yield her 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to another of our subcommittee chairwomen who has put in long hours and very hard work on this legislation, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have commended this gentleman in my opening remarks because he truly has worked hard over a number of years for a major part of this package. It is a highlight of the package, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) to explain it.

Mr. Speaker, a simple response to the gentleman who just spoke. There's no eminent domain authority whatsoever granted in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, a very valued Member that has worked hard on this bill and has done a superb job, and I want to commend Mr. Courtney for his leadership and work on this legislation.

I am prepared to close on this side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is 60-some pieces of legislation in this bill, and it may not be perfect, but it's the nature of the beast, as the process is. Of the 60-some measures in this legislation, 57 that went through our committee on

Natural Resources were pretty well examined. They weren't just thrown into this bill without any consideration whatsoever. Either in this Congress or the previous Congress, these bills have had hearings on them. I mentioned the subcommittee process that worked its will in our Committee on Natural Resources. So this bill has had pretty careful scrutiny.

I'd like to conclude by commending the majority leader of the other body, Mr. Reid. He has called me on this legislation. It passed through the other body after a tortuous process. The final vote over there was 91-4. I also want to commend the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the other side, Mr. Bingaman, for his work and his tenacity.

Again, I commend my ranking member, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Bishop, and the staffs on both sides of our committee on Natural Resources for the long hours that they have put in on this legislation. It is indeed, as the process goes, an excellent piece of legislation, and I am very proud and highly commend it to my colleagues for passage and on to the President for his signature.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Senate- passed bill, and urge that it be passed and sent to the President for signing into law.

It gathers into one omnibus measure some 60 bills--dealing with various public land, national park, water, and territorial issues--that have already been passed by the House but on which the Senate has not taken separate action. To expedite their consideration, Senator Bingaman, the Chairman of the other body's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, gathered them into one package after most if not all of them had been favorably reported by that committee and been pending on the Senate calendar for some time. Each part of the package is important, but I want to highlight three.

produced water legislation

Section 514, entitled ``More Water, More Energy, Less Waste,'' is based on my bill, H.R. 902, the ``More Water and More Energy Act,'' which passed the House last year.

Its purpose is to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with development of energy resources for irrigation and other uses in ways that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment.

I think there is a possibility that it can help change an energy- industry problem into an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone else who would benefit from increased supplies of useable water. And especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our hard-pressed ranchers and farmers.

The focus of the section is the underground water extracted in connection with development of energy sources like oil, natural gas or coalbed methane. It would do two things:

First, it would direct the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS to identify the obstacles to greater use of produced water and how those obstacles could be reduced or eliminated without adversely affecting water quality or the environment.

Second, it would provide for Federal help in building pilot plants to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable for irrigation or other uses, again without adversely affecting water quality or the environment. At least one of these pilot plants would be in each of the States in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River--that is, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming--and at least one would be in one of the States in the Colorado River's lower basin--Arizona, California, and Nevada. This is to assure that, together, the plants would demonstrate techniques applicable to a variety of geologic and other conditions. The Federal Government could pay up to half the cost of building each plant, but no more than $1 million for any one plant. No Federal funds could be used for operating the plants.

The extent of the potential benefits was shown by the testimony of Mr. David Templet at a hearing on the similar bill of mine the House considered in the 109th Congress.

Testifying on behalf of the Domestic Petroleum Council and several other groups, including the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, he noted that produced water is the most abundant byproduct associated with the production of oil and gas, with about 18 billion barrels being generated by onshore wells in 1995. And he pointed out that if only an additional 1 percent of that total could be put to beneficial use, the result would be to make over 75 billion gallons annually available for use for irrigation or other agriculture, municipal purposes, or to benefit fish and wildlife.

Now, remember that in the west we usually measure water by the acre- foot--the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of one foot--and an acre-foot is about 328,560 gallons, so an additional 75 billion gallons is more than 230,000 acre feet--more water, indeed.

And at the same time making produced water available for surface uses, instead of just reinjecting it into the subsurface, can help increase the production of oil and gas.

At the hearing, this was illustrated by the testimony of Dr. David Stewart, a registered professional engineer from Colorado. He cited the example of an oil field in California from which an estimated additional 150 million barrels of oil could be recovered if water were removed from the subsurface reservoir. And he pointed out that where oil recovery is thermally enhanced, a reduced amount of underground water means less steam--and so less cost--is needed to recover the oil.

The potential for having both more water and more energy is also illustrated by the example of a project near Wellington, Colorado, that treats produced water as a new water resource. I had the opportunity to visit it last year, and found it very interesting. An oil company is embarking on the project to increase oil production while a separate company will purchase the produced water to supplement existing supplies, eventually allowing the town of Wellington and other water users in the area to have increased water for drinking and other purposes.

In view of its potential for leading to both ``more water'' and ``more energy'' as well as ``less waste,'' I was pleased but not surprised that the Administration, through the Interior Department, has testified that it ``agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable and the needs that could be addressed are real.'' So, I welcome the fact that the Senate has followed the lead of the House in approving this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

platte river recovery implementation legislation

Section 515 of this Senate-passed bill is also based on a bill (H.R. 1462) I introduced last year. It will authorize the Interior Department to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin.

As I said when the House debated that bill, I consider myself fortunate to have the honor of introducing it, and am gratified that it was cosponsored by my Colorado colleagues, Representatives DeGette, Salazar, and Perlmutter, as well as the entire House delegations of our neighboring States of Wyoming and Nebraska.

Its purpose is to continue a cooperative effort involving the Federal Government and the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming (and other entities and groups) aimed at recovery of endangered species in ways that will not involve the creation of Federal water rights or requiring the grant of water rights to Federal entities. It is the result of 14 years of negotiations that culminated in 2006 when the Governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska joined Secretary Kempthorne in signing the agreement.

The program is modeled after a somewhat similar program for the recovery of several endangered species of fish in the upper basin of the Colorado River. I have strongly supported that program because it has enabled us in Colorado and other participating States to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while allowing continued development and use of water for other purposes as well. While such arrangements are not easy to work out, I think doing so is far better than alternative approaches that are more likely to be marked by conflicts or litigation. So, I think all concerned in the negotiation of this important agreement are to be congratulated.

The Program has three main elements--(1) increasing stream flows in the central Platte River during relevant periods through retiming and water conservation/supply projects; (2) enhancing, restoring and protecting habitat lands for the target bird species; and (3) accommodating certain new water related activities. Its purpose is to benefit three endangered species (interior least tern, whooping crane, and pallid sturgeon) and one threatened species (piping plover) referred to as the ``target species.'' The Federal Government is to pay half the cost, for which the total authorization would be $157.14 million plus any needed inflation adjustments. Implementation of the Program will mitigate the adverse impacts of certain new water related activities through the implementation of state and federal depletions plans. This will allow continued growth and water development to occur in the Platte River basin along with improving conditions for the target species.

The legislation is important for Colorado and our neighbors in Wyoming and Nebraska. I am glad that the Senate has approved it and look forward to its becoming law.

Northern Marianas Legislation

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that Title VII of the bill before us includes important provisions related to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI.

Subtitle A of that Title responds to longstanding Federal concerns regarding immigration, labor, and law enforcement in the CNMI.

Its enactment will bring completion, at long last, to more than a decade of congressional and executive branch efforts to extend the U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI including the establishment of Federal border control as anticipated by the 1976 covenant agreement between the CNMI and the United States.

And Subtitle B will enable the citizens of the CNMI--who have been U.S. citizens and members of the U.S. family for over 20 years--to elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives, a necessary step if we are to keep faith with our Nation's founding principle of representative government.

The CNMI, a U.S. Territory located in the western Pacific Ocean, is an archipelago comprised of fourteen islands. The majority of CNMI's population lives on three of the most southern islands: its capital Saipan, Rota, and Tinian. At the end of World War II, along with most of the other islands in the Micronesian region, they were included in a United Nations Strategic Trust Territory administered by the United States. In the early 1970's, the Northern Marianas sought greater self- government, and in 1975 submitted a ``Covenant'' proposal to the U.S. for final approval. After favorable consideration by Congress, that Covenant, which established the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in political union with the United States, was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

During the negotiations over the Covenant, island officials expressed concern about possible adverse effects on their culture and economic development that could come from application of certain U.S. laws. In response, the Marianas government was given temporary responsibility for determining minimum wage laws, immigration standards, and an income tax system.

Beginning in the late 1980s, the CNMI focused on developing a garment industry and used its local control of immigration policy to allow for the recruitment and importation of foreign guest workers. But there were increasing reports of abuses.

For example, after visiting the islands in July, 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform reported it had found problems ``ranging from bureaucratic inefficiencies to labor abuses to an unsustainable economic, social and political system that is antithetical to most American values,'' including exploitation of foreign workers with retaliation against protesters, suppression of basic freedoms, and flagrant abuses of household workers, agricultural workers, and bar girls. The Commission said the CNMI's guest-worker policy had created major policy problems and resulted in a two-class system where the majority of workers were denied political and social rights.

That and similar reports prompted efforts to achieve reforms through Federal legislation, and both the George H. W. Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration were concerned about repeated allegations that foreign guest workers were being mistreated and exploited. Both Administrations supported addressing the problem through legal reforms.

I have long supported those reforms. In 1999--my first year as a Representative from Colorado--I joined as a cosponsor of a bill a bill entitled the ``United States-Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Human Dignity Act'' to bar use of the ``Made in the USA'' label on textiles produced in the CNMI unless they were produced in plants that conformed with American labor laws, including those aimed at protecting health and safety and guarding against exploitation.

And ever since, I have supported similar legislation, including the bill (H.R. 3079, the ``Northern Mariana Islands Immigration, Security, and Labor Act'') which passed the House last year and which is the basis for Subtitle A of Title VII of the bill before us today.

I did so, in part, because in September, 1999, the Committee on Resources (as it was then named) held an oversight hearing regarding the enforcement of federal laws and the use of federal funds in the CNMI at which officials of the Interior Department and the Departments of Justice and Labor, testified that reform legislation was needed.

As the witness from the Justice Department put it, ``in order to control crime in the CNMI, the U.S. government must be able to prevent criminals from gaining unlimited access to the islands. We cannot expect to stop the flow of drugs, or guns, or trafficking in women and forced prostitution, unless we keep out the people who we know are already committing these crimes'' and ``the only way to fight effectively the larger crime problem on the CNMI is to apply the Act as it is applied in other U.S. jurisdictions with appropriate transitional phase-in provisions to prevent avoidable adverse impacts on the economy.'' And the witness from the Labor Department told our committee that ``there are extremely serious, pervasive, and stubbornly persist[ing] immigration, labor, and human rights problems in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas'' which ``derive from systematic, structural weaknesses in the legal framework in the Commonwealth and any solution to these problems demands a comprehensive, structural solution.''

In short, in the words of the witness from the Interior Department, ``current Federal law is insufficient to correct the continuing inadequacies caused by CNMI immigration and labor policy'' and ``the need to apply . . . Federal immigration, wage, and trade standards is inescapable.''

Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, while responsible Federal officials saw the need as inescapable, for too long Congress did not act to meet that need. In part, that was because those responsible for some of the worse abuses had friends in powerful positions here in the House of Representatives.

That evidently was why the then-leadership of the House refused to even allow the House to debate a reform bill (S. 1052 of the 106th Congress) sponsored by the Republican Senator who chaired the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that passed the Senate without dissent in 2000.

Instead of being brought to the House floor, like this bill, that measure was bottled up in the Resources Committee and Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who represented some of its most important opponents, reportedly informed his clients that ``We erected a roadblock in the House to stop the bill from moving.''

But now that roadblock is gone, and today we can write an end to that sad chapter by approving reforms that have been delayed far too long.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that deserves enactment, and I urge the House to approve it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007. This bill is a much-needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious commodity.

Several forces are converging to make our personal information more valuable--and more vulnerable--than ever. The world is digital and so is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of opening bank accounts, managing our credit cards, and making major purchases over the Internet. And we often complete these transactions without ever speaking to another person face-to-face or over the telephone. Businesses, nonprofits, and political parties are personalizing their messages, products, and services to a degree we've never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts of money in collecting personal information about potential customers or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify them accurately.

As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes valuable--stolen.

We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that have been on the front pages of newspapers. They have placed the identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk. The fear among the American public is so widespread that it has become the basis of an entire ad campaign by a credit card company.

But this is about much more than information security. Until California law required a company named ChoicePoint to notify individuals in 2005 that their information was compromised and that they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never heard of ChoicePoint. As news stories focused on the data broker business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of information, and that these companies sell that information to commercial and government entities. The revelations about these security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world-- and what kind of consequences they can face as a result.

When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover that personal information about them is available for free on the Internet.

There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized services, and allowing police officers to locate suspects. But these companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated.

Too many of my constituents feel that they have lost control over their own information. Congress must return some power to individual Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens to our own personal data.

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives consumers back some control over their own information. The bill requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information and to investigate when consumers tell them that corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk and can take steps to protect themselves.

In addition, the bill extends existing criminal law to ensure that it covers unauthorized access of data broker systems, as well as concealment of security breaches. It requires companies that buy and sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place. These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not all this bill accomplishes.

The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security provisions to govern the government's use of commercial data. This is an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much attention in the wake of the security breaches over the past few years. The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to individuals and businesses; government agencies of all stripes also buy or subscribe to information from commercial sources. We all remember the discovery in 2005 that the Pentagon had a contract with a marketing firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college students.

Although the government should be able to access commercial databases in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful, intrusive data mining programs. The Privacy Act, which governs when government agencies themselves are collecting data, likely does not apply because the information is held outside the government and is not gathered solely at government direction.

As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about government use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an individual already suspected of a crime.

We don't know under what circumstances government employees can obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know how government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which they subscribe. We don't know how the accuracy level of the data affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases. We don't know how those who misuse the information are punished. And we don't know how government agencies, particularly those engaged in sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data brokers cannot keep records of who the government is investigating, records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months.

That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to address the government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many legitimate reasons for government agencies to obtain commercially available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and security protections. It takes a common sense approach, pushing government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals' personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes, and that the commercial information the government is paying for and relying on is accurate and complete.

Specifically, the bill would require that federal agencies that subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The bill would ensure that government agencies consider and determine which personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy policies.

The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide information to the government that they know to be inaccurate. And it requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their vendors.

These are basic good government measures. They guarantee that the Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data and that vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised and for which the government is paying.

We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and security, and I hope it will move forward in this Congress. I congratulate Senators Leahy and Specter for their excellent work on this bill. This bill is important and it deserves serious consideration.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use obsolete payment data that hurts rural America.

First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only 10 percent of the Nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in clinical rotations.

Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented communities from investing in vital information technology. The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists, virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for

quality improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to invest in this otherwise out of reach technology.

Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue to hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my colleague Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that Medicare spends on the average beneficiary in the average State in this country, Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin. In Maine, Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the average beneficiary.

How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other States? Because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other States.

With the guidance and support of people across my State who are fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure. It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top medical talent to underserved rural areas. And it will mandate rural representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not be underrepresented in Washington as well.

Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice representing their needs in Medicare policy.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.