Sierra Vista Subwatershed Feasibility Study Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help millions of Americans overcome a deadly addiction: the addiction to tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 will help make smoking cessation therapy available to recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health, MCH, Program.

More than 45 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. Approximately 90 percent started smoking before the age of 14. Despite the fact that we have known for decades that cigarette smoking are the leading preventable cause of death, 1,600 adults become regular smokers each day, including 4,000 kids. Depending on your race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, even where you live, the likelihood that you are a smoker varies greatly. African-Americans are twice as likely as the general population to smoke. Communities in the South are more likely to be smoker-friendly than other communities in the U.S. While 22.5 percent of the general adult population in the U.S. are current smokers, the percentage is about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.

We have a moral argument and an economic argument to end the addiction to nicotine. Morally, how do we ignore the deaths of 438,000 smokers or 8.6 million Americans living with serious smoking-related illnesses? Smoking causes virtually all cases of lung cancer and contributes to primary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and other deadly health ailments. It is too often a bleak future for smokers and their families. An American Legacy Foundation report reminds us that second- hand smoke in children of smokers leads to asthma and chronic ear infections in children but also that 43,000 children are orphaned every year because of tobacco-related deaths.

We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as well. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, health care expenditures caused by smoking is approaching $100 billion. Our federal government pays $17.6 billion in smoking-caused Medicaid payments and $27.4 billion in smoking-caused Medicare expenditures.

Ironically, we do not hear that much about how many smokers America-- 70 percent--want to quit. Unfortunately, they face long odds--in 2000, only about 5 percent of smokers were successful in quitting long-term. Overcoming an addiction to tobacco is arguably one of the single most important lifestyle changes that can improve and extend lives. However, most smokers who want to quit don't appreciate how hard it really is to break an addition to nicotine.

This is why it is essential that we make this decision and the courage that it takes as easy as possible. States are already stepping up to the plate when it comes to smoking cessation. Last year in my home State of Illinois, a record-breaking 36 cities and counties enacted smoke-free laws, more than any other State in the Nation. More and more Illinoisans and Americans nationwide are realizing that life without smoking is possible. And the support for cessation does not end there. In fact, in 2003, 37 States had some form of coverage under Medicaid for at least one evidence-based treatment for smoking addiction. States like New Jersey and Oregon now have some of the lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.

Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health improvements and cost savings. Shortly after quitting smoking, blood circulation improves, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease, the risk of heart attack decreases, lung function and breathing are improved, and coughing decreases.

Pregnant women who quit smoking before their second trimester decrease the chances that they will give birth to a low-birth-weight baby. Over the long term, quitting will reduce a person's risk of heart disease and stroke, improve symptoms of COPD, reduce the risk of developing smoking-caused cancer, and extend life expectancy.

We are fortunate to have identified clinically proven, effective strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped millions kick the habit. An updated clinical practice guideline released in May of 2008 by the U.S. Public Health Service urges health care insurers and purchasers to include counseling and FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments as a covered benefit. The Guideline also emphasizes the role that counseling, especially in conjunction with medication, increases the odds of success in quitting. As we urge healthcare insurers and purchasers to offer this important benefit, so too should our government sponsored health programs keep pace.

I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Lautenberg to introduce the Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 and require government-sponsored health programs to cover this important benefit. The Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 makes it easier for people to have access to smoking cessation treatment therapies. It does three meaningful things.

First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat tobacco related diseases over the next 20 years.

Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows States to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under Medicaid. Despite the fact that the States have received payments from their successful Federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over 7 years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save $572 million in direct medical costs.

Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered part of quality maternal and child health services.

As Congress begins to examine more closely the impact of tobacco on our country--considering regulation by the FDA or raising taxes to pay for public health priorities--we must make sure we assist those fighting this deadly addiction. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and taking a stand for the public health of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing the TSA Acquisition Reform Act of 2007 to repeal exemptions from Federal contracting laws that were granted to the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, after 9/11 in the rush to secure airports. Representative Carney has introduced identical legislation in the House and I look forward to working with him to improve contracting at TSA.

TSA is one of the few Federal agencies and the only agency within the Department of Homeland Security that is not subject to the same procurement rules that every other Federal agency, including the Department of Defense, must abide.

Specifically, it is exempt from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR, which covers every major procurement law and requires Federal agencies to provide for an open and competitive bidding process and submit contract information to the Federal Procurement Data System. TSA's exemption from the FAR was never meant to be permanent, and this amendment would bring the agency in line with normal Federal contracting rules.

TSA has a record of mismanaging contracts and wasting taxpayer dollars, and has been the subject of several DOT and DHS Inspector General reports. For instance, in 2002, TSA, despite using FAR guidelines, issued a federally prohibited cost-plus-a-percentage contract to Boeing to install explosive detection systems in airports. In September 2004, the IG found that the initial $508 million contract ballooned to $1.2 billion, that Boeing was paid $49 million in excess profit, received $82 million to cover $39 million in costs, and ultimately received a 210 percent return on its investment.

In 2005, the Washington Post reported on an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency which showed that a contract issued to the Pearson government solutions firm to recruit Federal passenger screeners increased in cost from $104 million to $741 million in 9 months in part because TSA changed the scope of the contract to require Pearson to use posh hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria, as recruitment centers. TSA disputes this account, but cannot provide any paperwork to back it up. The article quoted Deputy DHS Secretary Michael Jackson as saying, ``Honestly, I have no memory of it.''

In 2004, the when the GAO wanted to review 21 TSA contracts, it literally had to send staff to rummage through boxes of files to retrieve information that would otherwise have been in the Federal Procurement Data System.

As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am particular concerned about TSA's inability to meet its small business contracting goals. I am pleased that the 2007 DHS Appropriations bill applied the Small Business Act to TSA, but small business owners won't truly benefit because TSA is still exempt from basic contracting rules under the FAR that helps them compete for Federal contracts. Although TSA's small business contracting goal is 23 percent annually, only 10.7 percent of its contracts went to small businesses in 2005. Analysis conducted by my staff suggest that the true figure is closer to 6 percent because many of the large corporations that contract with TSA set up subsidiaries that technically qualify as small businesses but are in fact part of a larger corporation. I am concerned about this and I know that my colleague, Senator Snowe, the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, is concerned as well.

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

It would be wrong to suggest that exemption from FAR is the main reason that TSA has mismanaged contracts. Its acquisition office was understaffed after 9/11, and there was a rush to meet Congressional deadlines that led to sloppy oversight. I understand that TSA has spent millions to improve its contracting office and I commend it for doing so. However, it is far from clear that TSA has a functional procurement system. A 2006 GAO review of the ongoing Boeing contract suggests that poor contracting oversight continues to plague TSA. The report states that ``TSA officials provided no evidence that they are reviewing required contractor submitted performance data,'' and that they ``do not document their activities because there are no TSA policies and procedures requiring them to do so. I know all Members would agree that this is a problem.

Unfortunately, lack of transparency and accountability are common themes in TSA's procurement history. Former DHS IG Kent Ervin has said that ``TSA is rapidly becoming the poster child for contracting dysfunction.'' Citizens Against Government Waste, which has endorsed this amendment, said in a letter to my office that ``TSA has a record of wasteful spending and mismanagement in its acquisition process and a continued exemption will only lead to more abuse.'' I think we would be remiss in our oversight responsibilities if we did not repeal these exemptions. TSA should not be policing itself.

I am not alone with these concerns. Just ask the Professional Services Council, the Nation's largest trade association representing Government contractors. In a letter to sent to my office yesterday, the PSC stated that my amendment will ``increase competition, expand opportunities for small businesses, provide greater accountability and transparency in their procurement process.'' This judgment comes from the association representing the contractors that do business with TSA.

Last year, TSA sent a letter to my office saying that it follows the FAR as a general rule but that its exemption ``benefits taxpayers.'' Amazingly, TSA criticized the FAR's requirement that Federal agencies consider all interested companies in the bidding process, saying that ``negatively impacts the limited resources of the government.'' It is hard to see how taxpayers benefit when an agency has the ability to opt out of the competitive bidding process at its choosing. The Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, none of these agencies can simply decide to opt out of the FAR unless they meet the criteria for an exemption which is already provided for under the law.

This legislation is simple: apply the same rules to TSA that every other agency has to follow. There is no legitimate reason to maintain these exemptions--not for efficiency, not for national security. If it is good enough for the Department of Defense, it is good enough for

Mr. President, there is general agreement on both sides of the aisle that we have a foreign intelligence surveillance problem that should be addressed. The difference between us is that on this side of the aisle we have consistently been willing to work cooperatively to solve the problem.

There is a model. In 1976, we faced a similar problem. The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, known as the Church Committee, had found disturbing abuses of electronic surveillance. Congress and the administration set out to pass a law to prevent such abuses in the future, while still protecting our national security.

In 1976, I was the principal sponsor of the original bill that became FISA. When my colleagues and I first introduced the bill, we had a Democratic Congress, a Republican President, Gerald Ford, and a Republican Attorney General, Ed Levi. Attorney General Levi understood the need for Congress and the executive branch to work together. Members of the Judiciary Committee went down to the Justice Department at least four times to meet on the bill. There were discussions with Henry Kissinger, Don Rumsfeld, Brent Scowcroft, and George Bush among others.

We worked responsibly and cooperatively to develop legislation to protect our civil liberties and ensure that the Nation could use necessary surveillance. In the end, Attorney General Levi praised the bipartisan spirit of cooperation that characterized the negotiations and produced a good bill. That administration recognized the importance of working with Congress. The final bill was passed by the Senate by a vote of 95 to 1.

As this history demonstrates, our Nation is strongest when we work together for our national security. Unfortunately, the current administration has chosen a very different course. President Bush has refused all along to consult Congress on the development and implementation of its surveillance program, and now we find that it violated the law.

This is not an argument for granting expanded discretion to the administration. There is simply no basis for trusting this administration to respect the privacy of the American people. Nor do we have any confidence in the administration's competence to adopt a lawful and effective program.

When Attorney General Gonzales appeared before the Judiciary Committee in February 2006, I questioned him about FISA and the recently revealed warrantless eavesdropping program. I offered to work with him then. In fact, I asked him why he had not approached Congress sooner, given Attorney General Levi's success and given the cost of getting it wrong. He answered: ``We did not think we needed to, quite frankly.''

Well, we now know that wasn't true. I pointed out to the Attorney General at the time the benefit of having consensus on this issue and the importance of fostering a cooperative atmosphere. His answer to me was: ``I do not think that we are wrong on this.'' But they were wrong, which is why we are debating this issue at the eleventh hour today.

I told him then that the administration was sending the wrong message to the courts, that they were jeopardizing our ability to convict terrorists by using these illegal intelligence methods. The Attorney General said:

That is the last thing we want to do. We believe this program is lawful.

He was wrong again. The program is not lawful and administration needs Congress to fix it.

I did not stand alone on these issues. I had the support of many of my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle. Yet the record is clear that the Attorney General repeatedly rebuffed our efforts to work with the Administration to get this legislation right the first time.

Instead, the Attorney General and the President have consistently rejected congressional input and oversight. They have repeatedly demanded that Congress rubberstamp their decisions and trust their discretion. We have seen where that leads, and we owe the Nation a better approach.

We should pass legislation today that closes the gap in current law and preserves the critical role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in protecting our civil liberties.

Unfortunately, some of our colleagues, instead of using this opportunity to work together to safeguard the Nation, would prefer to pass yet another partisan assault on the rule of law and American civil liberties. They insist on diminishing the role of the FISA Court and increasing the unsupervised discretion of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. They want to trust Alberto Gonzales to ensure that the Government does not listen to the phone calls and read the e-mails of Americans without justification. We need to modernize FISA, not undermine it. Their proposal clearly contradicts the fundamental purpose of the initial legislation.

This administration railroaded us into war in Iraq, railroaded us into passing the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act and now it wants to railroad us into amending FISA without the time or information to consider the need properly.

We take a backseat to no one in wanting to keep our America safe. We know that our families, our friends, and our communities are at stake. We want to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, but there is a right

way and a wrong way to do it. This eleventh-hour grandstanding by administration is the wrong way to do it.

We should remember how we reached this point. For 4 straight years, the Bush administration recklessly conducted warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA. The President acknowledged this surveillance only after it was reported in the press. Until January of this year, the administration refused to bring its surveillance program under the oversight of the FISA Court, despite the clear statutory requirement to do so.

The FISA Court has now reviewed the surveillance and has issued a ruling. It has declared that a significant aspect of the President's warantless surveillance program, in operation for 4 years without any oversight, violates the law and cannot continue. Without bipartisan congressional pressure to force that review, these and other despicable violations of the rule of law would have gone on and on. Even today, the Attorney General continues to mislead Congress on basic information about the program, and he refuses to provide the legal justifications on which he relied.

Now, after the FISA Court's clear ruling, the administration is urgently demanding that we correct their mistake. We can do that. We can reach the appropriate balance between modernizing the legislation to protect our national security and maintaining its basic protection of civil liberties. If the administration and its allies are serious about effectively protecting the country from terrorist threats, and doing so under the rule of law, they should support such legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, with a possibility of a closed session, to receive testimony on the Department of the Navy in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Semiannual Monetary Policy Report To Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to review the President's proposed Department of Transportation budget for the 2009 fiscal year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the impact of increased minimum wages on the economies of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Real Estate Market: Building a Strong Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on U.S. policy options in post-election Pakistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 2304, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007, (Domenici, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy); S. 2449, Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007, (Kohl, Leahy, Graham); S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007, (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin); S. 2136, Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007, (Durbin, Schumer, Whitehouse, Biden, Feinstein); and S. 2133, Home Owners ``Mortgage and Equity Savings Act'', (Specter, Coleman).

II. Nominations: Kevin J. O'Connor to be Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice; Gregory G. Katsas to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``War at any cost? The total economic costs of the war beyond the Federal budget'' on Thursday, February 28, 2008. The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight: Security of Our Nation's Nuclear Plants.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program: Are the Needed Safeguards in Place to Protect America?'' on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

Paul Rosenzweig, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Tony Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC; Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC; Susan Ginsburg, Director of Programs on Mobility and Security, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC; and Jessica Vaughan, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the following legislation:

S. 177/H.R. 2085, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the McGee Creek Authority certain facilities of the McGee Creek Project, Oklahoma, and for other purposes;

S. 1473/H.R. 1855, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project;

S. 1474/H.R. 1139, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to plan, design and construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, and other uses from the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin, Santa Ana River, California, and for other purposes;

S. 1929, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed;

S. 2370, to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes;

H.R. 2381, to promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes.

May I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. President, we have before us two pieces of legislation; am I correct?

Would the Chair please state who the sponsors are of the two individual pieces of legislation?

I thank the Chair.

Would the Senator yield for another question? I also note in here S. 1927 basically gives a great deal----

Mr. President, the Rockefeller-Levin bill might not be precisely the bill I would have written to fix the problem, but it is a responsible and targeted fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, problem that has been identified. It is an appropriate response to the need expressed by Director of National Intelligence McConnell regarding our foreign intelligence collection overseas. In addition, it tries to preserve some balance and some protections for the civil liberties of Americans by keeping the FISA Court involved when there are significant communications to and from the United States.

I have been briefed by the DNI and his staff and met with him several times recently about a problem that our intelligence agencies are having in collecting information from overseas. I have said that I am willing to fix this problem, and I am. I have proposed ways to fix this identified problem. It might not be everything he would like, his wish list, but it solves his problem. The Congress has shown that it is willing and able to reform FISA when changes are needed. We have done so many times since FISA was first passed in 1978 and at least half a dozen times since September 11, 2001. I believe such a targeted, responsible fix is justified.

To achieve that fix, I would vote for Rockefeller-Levin. We could enact the needed change immediately. As I have indicated, it is not everything that I would have wanted or drafted precisely as I would have written it. But it does the job and achieves a better balance than any viable alternative. I have worked with Senator Rockefeller for weeks on this matter and appreciate his leadership on this matter, as well as that of Senator Levin.

The problem our intelligence agencies are having is with targeting communications overseas. We want them to be able to intercept calls between two people overseas with a minimum of difficulty. Obviously, the situation is complicated when people overseas might be talking to people here in the United States. These calls could be innocent conversations of businesspeople, tourists, our troops overseas to their families, or to other friends or family in the United States. We should want to give the Government great flexibility to listen to foreign-to- foreign calls, while still protecting privacy of innocent Americans by making sure the Government gets warrants when they are involved.

The Rockefeller-Levin bill accomplishes both of these things. It provides a very flexible standard up front for the Government--it is only required to go to the court for approval of procedures for how it will know that the targets are, in fact, overseas. There is no case-by- case application and approval of warrants for these overseas targets. There is even an initial emergency provision that would allow the Government to start these interceptions before the court has done anything.

To protect Americans, the House bill requires the Government to have guidelines--and show them to the Congress--for how it will determine when a target is having regular communications with the United States. Then they need to go back to the regular FISA procedures and show probable cause. Also, the Department of Justice inspector general must do an audit of the conduct under this bill to see how much information about people in the United States is being collected and must provide that audit to the court and Congress. Because this process has been so expedited and the issues involved are so significant, the bill would sunset in 180 days, so the Congress and the administration will have an opportunity to review it and act in a more deliberative way on these important issues.

Some things were added here that I might not have done. It now applies to all foreign intelligence targets, not just those involving international terrorism. It also does not require the court to review and approve the guidelines for handling significant communications with the United States, only the Congress sees this. These aspects trouble me. They are significant. The Director of National Intelligence has said that with these changes, the bill solves his problems and would significantly enhance our national security. This bill should resolve the matter, but this administration does not know how to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Regrettably, what has come over from the administration and has been introduced here by Senator Bond and Senator McConnell goes far beyond what the DNI said he needs and I fear would be very harmful to the civil liberties of Americans. The bill the administration has proposed is a vast rewrite of the FISA law that undercuts the purposes of that act in significant ways. What the administration has done is leverage a fixable problem into passage of a wish list of ways to give the Attorney General and through him the White House virtual unfettered authority to conduct surveillance. It would take away any meaningful role for the FISA Court for calls between overseas and the United States. In fact, because it is not restricted to terrorism but involves any foreign intelligence, the administration's bill gives them far greater authority than they had claimed in their secret, warrantless surveillance program.

This bill allows Attorney General Gonzales to order surveillance. This Attorney General is in charge of decisions about when to conduct surveillance and can instruct the court to enforce those decisions. In effect, the only role for the court under this bill is as an enforcement agent--it is to rubberstamp the Attorney General's decisions and use its authority to order telephone companies to comply. The court would be stripped of its authority to serve as a check and to protect the privacy of people within the United States. Their bill likewise requires no review or audit by the Justice Department or anyone else about the number of U.S. communications that are being gathered by these orders.

I believe it is important to solve the problem our intelligence agencies are having right now. It is also essential to preserve the critical role of the FISA Court in protecting civil liberties of Americans. The House bill will do both of these things better than its alternatives.

Mr. President, about a year ago, a group of hardwood plywood

manufacturers came to me with a problem, Chinese hardwood plywood imports were threatening their businesses. They raised a whole host of issues, from tariff misclassification to subsidies to fraudulent labeling to illegal logging. These unfair and illegal practices were lowering the costs of the Chinese hardwood plywood imports, giving them an unfair advantage over U.S. hardwood plywood and putting American companies in jeopardy of going out of business and the folks that they employ out of work.

Since that time, I have been working to level the playing field for Oregon hardwood plywood manufacturers and protect the jobs of the workers that they employ. I have met with the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Customs and Border Patrol, and the International Trade Commission and urged them to investigate these issues and, where appropriate, act to address them. They have, raising these troubling practices in diplomatic negotiations, opening investigations, and even filing a case before the World Trade Organization targeting Chinese subsidies that benefit the hardwood plywood industry, among others.

Today, with the support of industry, labor, and the environmental community, I am proud to introduce the Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007 to halt the trade in illegal timber and timber products. This act will help to level the playing field, not just for Oregon hardwood plywood manufacturers affected by Chinese imports, but for all American manufacturers across the country struggling to compete against imported, low-priced wood and wood products harvested from illegal sources.

Equally important, the act helps address an illegal logging crisis. From the Amazon to the Congo Basin, from Sulawesi to Siberia, illegal logging is destroying ecosystems. It is gutting local economies. It is annihilating ways of life. Because of the speed and violence with which illegal logging is occurring, failing to curb its effects now may result in irreversible damage.

The bill that I am introducing today can help curb illegal logging and thwart its devastating consequences.

The Lacey Act currently regulates trade in fish, wildlife, and a limited subset of plants by making it unlawful to ``import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase'' any that are taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any State law or, with respect to fish and wildlife only, any foreign law. The Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007 would expand the Lacey Act so that violations of foreign law that apply to plants and plant products fall within its protections. It would also specify the types of foreign law violations that trigger Lacey Act liability, laws intended to prevent theft or ensure the legal right to harvest the plants. Finally, the act would create a declaration requirement to facilitate the Lacey Act's enforcement for timber without placing an undue burden upon law-abiding businesses.

The declaration requirements provide basic transparency for wood shipments. The declaration will have critical value for combating illegal logging by 1. encouraging importers to ask basic questions regarding the origin of their timber and timber products; 2. providing information at the point of import that will allow authorities with limited resources to do efficient, targeted inspections and enforcement; and 3. helping enforcement agents to immediately identify ``low-hanging fruit,'' such as timber expressly prohibited to be exported.

The act will definitely change the way that folks who are importing illegally harvested timber and wood products do business, this is its intended purpose. But for the many companies who already play by the rules, the act's requirements should result in minimal changes to the way they operate. Moreover, when the act's impact from a competitiveness standpoint is factored in, the effect is a net positive for these companies. This act changes the incentives to reward due diligence, a sound long-term business strategy from any perspective.

This bill is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by stakeholders that many might view as strange bedfellows. The principal negotiators of the compromise, the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency, deserve a tremendous amount of credit for sticking with this and finding a solution that everyone could support. I applaud them for their hard work, the maturity with which they approached the issue, and the respect that they showed each other throughout the process. Their conduct is a model for how things should work in Washington.

I would also like to applaud the work of several of my colleagues in the House, Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Wexler, and Congressman Weller, who introduced their own illegal logging bill, the Legal Timber Protection Act, earlier this year. I understand that their bill may be taken up by the House Natural Resources Committee this fall and I am hopeful that they will substitute the broadly supported text of the Combat Illegal Logging Act for their bill, paving the way for the enactment of this important piece of legislation.

I would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator Kerry, Senator Snowe, and Senator Feingold for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the bill. I would also like to thank the following organizations, in addition to the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency for endorsing the bill: Center for International Environmental Law, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Greenpeace, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Hardwood Lumber Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, Sierra Club, Society of American Foresters, Sustainable Furniture Council, The Nature Conservancy, Tropical Forest Trust, United Steelworkers, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Hatch to introduce the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007. This bill will provide the administration additional tools, resources, and accountability to enforce international trade agreements abroad and domestic trade remedy laws here at home.

Over 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote ``The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.'' The same could be said of our trade enforcement laws today.

The administration has many tools at its disposal to enforce international trade agreements. It can file dispute settlement cases in the World Trade Organization, WTO. It has Section 301 to fight market access barriers. It has Special 301 to address intellectual property violations abroad. It has Section 421 to remedy Chinese import surges that cause injury here at home.

But having these rules on the books is not enough. We need to enforce them.

There is a very real sense among Americans that our trading partners do not play by the rules. And there is a very real sense that the U.S. Government is allowing them to get away with it.

That is why I am introducing the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007--to ensure that the administration has the resources to enforce our existing trade laws, to provide political accountability when it does not, and to create new tools that address the enforcement priorities of American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service suppliers.

This legislation bolsters enforcement of U.S. trade agreements in three important ways.

First, it requires the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, to dedicate more time to enforcement. The bill requires USTR to provide an annual report to Congress identifying the most significant barriers to U.S. companies abroad and to take enforcement action to resolve them. It also makes trade enforcement more accountable to Congress. The bill allows the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee to require USTR to identify a specific barrier in its annual report. And, significantly, the bill creates a Senate-confirmed Chief Enforcement Officer at USTR to investigate and prosecute trade enforcement cases.

Second, the bill addresses serious concerns that have been raised about the quality of recent World Trade Organization dispute settlement decisions. It does so by establishing a commission of retired judges and international trade law experts to review the decisions and determine whether they impose obligations on the U.S. that are not found in the text of the WTO agreements. The bill also prevents the administration from changing a regulation to comply with an adverse WTO decision until Congress receives the commission's report.

Third, the bill ensures that other U.S. government agencies do not use foreign policy and other noneconomic rationales to block USTR from taking tough enforcement actions. It clarifies that while USTR must carefully consider any advice provided by the interagency trade organization established under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it need not, and shall not, seek approval of its actions from the organization.

The bill also bolsters enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws in four important ways.

First, the bill limits the President's discretion to deny relief in Section 421 cases to address Chinese import surges. This administration has utterly failed to use this trade remedy as Congress intended. It has denied relief in every case where the International Trade Commission, ITC, determined that relief was warranted. Our bill remedies this deficiency by requiring the President to proclaim any import relief that the ITC recommends unless the President finds, in extraordinary cases, that the relief would seriously harm our national security or would have an adverse impact on our economy that clearly and significantly outweighs the benefits. Congress may override the economic determination and reinstate the ITC's decision if it enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.

Second, the bill makes it easier for U.S. companies to obtain relief from subsidized imports from certain countries. It clarifies that the Commerce Department may apply countervailing duties to nonmarket economies like China. The Commerce Department has long taken the position that our countervailing duty laws do not apply to nonmarket economies, and it has refused to do so until very recently. The bill closes this loophole and eliminates any remaining uncertainty.

Third, the bill makes it easier for U.S. companies to obtain relief from subsidized and dumped imports from all countries by overriding the Federal Circuit's recent Bratsk decision. The bill provides that the ITC must make its injury determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases without regard to whether imports from other countries are likely to replace imports from the country under investigation.

Fourth, the bill increases intellectual property expertise at the ITC. It authorizes the ITC to appoint hearing officers, rather than administrative law judges, ALJs, to take evidence and make initial decisions in intellectual property investigations under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Unlike the current ALJs, the hearing officers would be required to have technical expertise and experience in intellectual property law.

The overarching goal of this bill is, as Shakespeare might say, to ``wake up'' our trade laws from their current slumber and ensure that the administration enforces them to the fullest extent. Our farmers, ranchers, and companies deserve nothing less.

I therefore hope that my colleagues will support the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007.