Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007, together with my colleague Senator Boxer. This legislation authorizes Federal participation in a regional water reuse project that is the first of its kind in Northern California, and model for the West.

The program will allow urban water agencies to take treated wastewater now discharged into the sensitive bay-delta ecosystem and put it to productive use on water-short agricultural lands and environmentally valuable wetlands. It is an innovative ``win-win'' solution that will protect the environment as well as meet the future water needs of urban and agricultural

water users in the North Bay region of California.

Agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing, and will continue to encounter, major water shortages. At the same time, as regulations continue to restrict and/or eliminate wastewater discharge, many communities in the North Bay region will face challenges as they try to determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will address both problems and enhance the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the program will distribute reclaimed water through a conveyance system and deliver it to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year.

The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. Furthermore, in the off- season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for the restoration of wetlands, creating habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland species.

Most notably, this program grew from a collaboration of the three major stakeholders in the region that vie for the same water. It is significant that the program is supported by the local governments in three counties, Napa, Sonoma and Marin Counties; agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, the North Bay Agriculture Alliance; and environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute.

Thus, the North Bay Water Reuse Program brings stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another to the table to find a solution that is beneficial to all.

Finally, I would like to note the energy benefits of this project. The Sonoma Valley treatment plant, installing solar panels that will generate 40 percent of its energy needs. Another partner in the program, Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, generates 90 percent of its operating energy using solar panels.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will allow vineyard managers to cease or significantly reduce their use of gas and electric powered pumps that currently deliver irrigation water. The program proponents expect to see a net reduction of overall energy use for regional irrigation operations, as well as a net reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide from irrigation operations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act. This legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau, to participate in the design and construction of the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, project, that is essential to

improving the water supply in the Madera Irrigation District, MID, in Madera County, CA, and in California's Central Valley.

Representative George Radanovich has introduced companion legislation to this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with him to get this bill enacted.

Agriculture is a multibillion enterprise in California, which produces a significant portion of the Nation's food supply. To secure this food supply, water is essential. When constructed, the project will have the capacity to store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water and move up to 55,000 acre feet in or out of storage each year.

With increasing demands on limited water supply, the project will enable water users to store excess wet year water supply and this stored water can then be used during dry years to meet demand. To ensure the viability of the groundwater table and address overdraft problems, 10 percent of the water placed in storage would be left in the ground to replenish the aquifer over time.

This Project is also a useful complement to efforts to restore the San Joaquin River. Restoring water to the San Joaquin River may reduce the water supply available to agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley by up to 165,000 acre feet per year.

It is very important to me to do what I can to help make up this water deficit. The Madera Water Bank is one project that can help, and I will be looking at it and other projects closely to prioritize limited Federal appropriations to address this important need.

MID, the local agency that will build, own and manage the project has already made a major financial commitment to making the water bank a reality. MID has spent $37.5 million to purchase the nearly 14,000 acre Madera Ranch, which will be the site of the water bank, and millions more on studies. This land is ideal for storing water in the aquifer. Over 11,000 acres of the ranch also constitute valuable habitat for numerous species and contain large sections of the region's native grasslands that will be preserved.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the predecessor legislation, H.R. 3897, which passed the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. As a result of that hearing, two changes were made to the legislation.

First, the total cost of the project is capped at $90 million. Under the legislation, the maximum Federal contribution will be $22.5 million or 25 percent of the total cost of the project, whichever is less. This change provides certainty and limits the Federal Government's financial exposure in supporting this project.

The second change to last year's legislation is the decision to declare the project ``feasible'' without further study. The reason for this approach relates to the project's unusual history.

The feasibility of constructing a water bank on the Madera Ranch property has been under consideration for over a decade. In 1996 the Bureau began studying this possibility, and in 1998 the Bureau finalized plans to fund a water bank on the property. After conducting extensive studies regarding the feasibility of building a water bank on the property, the Bureau was prepared to pay over $40 million for the property and $60-$70 million to construct the water bank. This total amount, in excess of $100 million, is significantly more than the cost of MID's water bank almost 10 years later. Although the Bureau eventually withdrew from the project because of local concerns regarding sizing, water quality, and nonlocal ownership issues, no one has ever disputed the suitability of the site for a water bank.

After the Bureau's involvement ended, Azurix, an Enron subsidiary, attempted to build a water bank but was unable to complete the project because of many of the same concerns raised during the Bureau's efforts. However, many more studies were done during this phase for the reformulated project. MID has also conducted further studies. To date, over $8 million has been spent on studies related to the Project, exclusive of the Bureau's own extensive studies of the project.

The legislation identifies 18 specific studies done over the past decade on this project, many by the Bureau itself and others by private parties and MID, all with the Bureau's full knowledge and involvement. In many cases, the same engineering consulting firms used by the Bureau were retained to conduct these further studies. There is simply nothing left to study, and we should proceed immediately to the construction phase of this project.

The Bureau has been a long-term supporter of California agriculture, and working in partnership with the State, local governments, water users and others has helped provide irrigation water for over 10 million farmland acres.

The MID water bank is consistent with the Bureau's historical mission of supporting such locally controlled and initiated water projects. Swift enactment of this legislation is necessary to bring over 10 years of study to a conclusion and make the water bank a reality for Madera County, the surrounding region, the Central Valley and the entire State of California.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Riverside-Corona feeder. This project, which is being undertaken by Western Municipal Water District, would provide one of California's fastest growing but drought prone regions, with 40,000 acre-feet of new supply at a reasonable cost of approximately $370 per acre foot. The project would efficiently integrate groundwater storage with existing surface supply management.

The purpose of the Riverside-Corona feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in the underground aquifer in wet years in order to increase water supply, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre-feet.

The project would allow locally stored water to replace the need to import water from Colorado River and State water project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County.

For water users, dependence on imported water in dry years will be reduced, water costs will be reduced, and water reliability will be improved.

There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells would be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells could remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year. Detailed feasibility studies and environmental reports have been prepared and approved by Western Municipal Water District and certified by the State of California.

The California State Water Resources Control Board recognizes that the Riverside Corona feeder is an important project, recently awarding it $4.3 million from proposition 50 competitive grant funds.

Because water agencies understand that the project is integral to regional water planning, the Riverside-Corona feeder has the support of agencies upstream in San Bernardino County and downstream in Orange County. This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Integrated Resource Plan, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the water management plans for the cities of Riverside, Norco and Corona as well as the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.

This is a bipartisan initiative, as witnessed by the list of cosponsors of the House version of the bill I introduce today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River.

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

Mr. President, together with my good friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to help the San Francisco bay area a region with a growing population, limited

water resources, and a unique environmental setting, address its critical water needs.

The bill, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007, would help seven bay area communities increase their municipal water supplies through innovative and much-needed water recycling projects.

These projects offer significant benefits. For California and the Federal Government such benefits include: the preservation of State and Federal reservoir supplies for higher uses rather than for urban landscape irrigation, particularly in drought years; and, a cost effective, environmentally friendly, implementable solution for increased dry year yield in the sensitive bay-delta region. Regional and local benefits include: the preservation of ever declining water supplies from the Sierra and delta for higher uses; assistance in drought-proofing the region through provision of a sustainable and reliable source of water; and reduction in wastewater discharges to the sensitive bay-delta environment.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a partnership between 17 local bay area water and wastewater agencies, the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that is dedicated to maximizing water recycling throughout the region. The regional approach taken by the bay area project sponsors ensures that projects with the greatest regional, statewide, and national benefits receive the highest priority for implementation.

This bill would authorize the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to participate in seven bay area water recycling program projects that are closest to completion. Each community with a project would be eligible to receive 25 percent of the project's construction cost. The total cost of the seven projects is $110 million, but the Federal Government's share is only $27.5 million. State funding is available for these projects.

For the most part, the projects are ready to proceed and start delivering their benefits the projects having been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and through the various steps of the Federal review process but Federal funding is needed to make implementation a reality and to allow the many benefits of these projects to be realized.

Specifically, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the following bay area water reuse projects: Antioch Recycled Water project--Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of Antioch; North Coast County Water District Recycled Water project-- North Coast County Water District; Mountain View/Moffett Area Water Reuse Project--city of Palo Alto, city of Mountain View: Pittsburg Recycled Water Project-Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of Pittsburg; Redwood City Recycled Water project--city of Redwood; South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project-Santa Clara Valley Water District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority; and, South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility--Santa Clara Valley Water District, city of San Jose.

These seven projects are estimated to make 12,205 acre-feet of water available annually in the short term, and 37,600 acre-feet annually in the long term, all while reducing demand on the delta and on existing water infrastructure.

Congressman George Miller introduced a companion bill, H.R.1526, in the House on March 14, 2007. The bill was cosponsored by other bay area lawmakers, including Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Jerry McNerney, Tom Lantos, Mike Honda; Zoe Lofgren, and Pete Stark.

Water recycling offers great potential to States like California that suffer periodic droughts and have limited fresh water supplies. To address these issues, the bill would establish a partnership between the Federal Government and local communities to implement a regional water recycling program in the bay area. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Barbara Boxer and Daniel Inouye to introduce legislation that would authorize the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center, a World War II-era Japanese American internment camp, located in Northern California.

My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Doolittle and Congresswoman Doris Matsui, also are introducing companion legislation today.

In 1942, as part of a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 to authorize the U.S. military to incarcerate Japanese American families from California and other west coast States, in violation of their due process rights afforded to all Americans.

Over the years, California's political leaders have led a national bipartisan effort to ensure that this chapter in American history is not forgotten.

In 1992, my colleagues in the California congressional delegation passed bi-partisan legislation to establish the Manzanar National Historic Site, the Nation's first unit of the National Park System dedicated to telling the story of the wrongful internment of the Japanese American community during World War II.

I am pleased to say that Manzanar has been a terrific success story. My colleague Representative Jerry Lewis and I were able to secure Federal appropriations to refurbish the camp auditorium to accommodate the tens of thousands of visitors to the site. Last year, nearly 90,000 people visited the Manzanar National Historic Site to learn about this unfortunate chapter in United States history.

As part of the Manzanar legislation, Congress directed the National Park Service to conduct a study of the other camp sites and to recommend National Historic Landmark designation for these sites. Based on this study, the Department of the Interior designated Tule Lake as a National Historic Landmark last year, upon finding that the remaining 42 acres of federally owned land at the site possesses national significance.

Of all of the camp sites, Tule Lake has retained some of the most significant historic features dating back to the internment. The federally owned lands include numerous camp buildings in their original locations, most notably the camp stockade, which was a ``jail within a jail.'' The finding of the site's national significance by the Secretary of the Interior last year is a key step forward in the process to evaluate the site's potential for management by the National Park Service.

Over the past several years, the Tule Lake Preservation Committee, the Japanese American Citizens League, the Japanese American National Museum and other local, regional and national partners have worked with Modoc County and the local community to develop a recommendation to study the potential for designation of the Tule Lake Segregation Center as a National Historic Site. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors.

Although the Tule Lake Segregation Center is already a National Historic Landmark, the 42-acre site is not managed by the National Park Service. This bill would authorize the National Park Service to study the feasibility and suitability of managing the Federal lands at Tule Lake as a 42-acre National Historic Site, to be managed as part of the Lava Beds National Monument. Through this legislation, the NPS will develop various management alternatives for the site and give the public an opportunity to comment on the alternatives, through a public process. In light of the recent National Park Service work to prepare the national historic landmark designation, the cost to complete this study is quite modest. Upon completion of the study, the NPS would transmit the study to Congress for review.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the internment of Japanese- Americans, when the Federal Government ordered Japanese American men, women and children to report to temporary assembly centers, including 13 centers in California. Many families were broken up as fathers were sent to prisons, work camps and Department of Justice camps hundreds of miles away. Without hearings or any evidence of disloyalty, Japanese- American families were transported to assembly centers in April and May of 1942. The largest assembly center was at the Santa Anita racetrack, which held over 18,000 people in horse stalls and other makeshift quarters.

Deprived of their basic constitutional rights, Japanese-American citizens and resident aliens were held in these centers until the U.S. government built more permanent camps in 10 locations in California and throughout the Western States and Arkansas. Together, these camps held over 120,000 Japanese Americans, of which about three quarters were living in California before the war.

My good friend, the late-Representative Robert Matsui, was just an infant when his family was ordered from their home in Sacramento to the Pinedale Assembly Center. From there, he was sent to the Tule Lake, Segregation Center in Modoc County, CA not far from the Oregon border.

Like the other camps, the Tule Lake Relocation Center was constructed in a remote area, on a large tract of federally owned land, managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Prisoners there held frequent demonstrations and strikes, demanding their rights under the U.S. Constitution. As a result, Tule Lake was made a ``segregation camp,'' and internees from other camps who had refused to take the loyalty oath or had caused disturbances were sent there.

Despite these injustices, many young men in camp answered the call to serve in the U.S. Army and demonstrated their loyalty to the United States and to defend the same basic constitutional freedoms that had been violated by the U.S. Government's actions. Japanese Americans served with great valor and bravery in Europe, including our colleague Senator Daniel Inouye.

During its operation, Tule Lake was the largest of the 10 camps, with 18,789 people housed in makeshift barracks. Opened on May 27, 1942, Tule Lake was one of the last camps to be closed, staying open until March 20, 1946, 7 months following the end of World War II.

Following World War II, our Nation has recognized that the forced evacuation and incarceration of Japanese Americans was wrong and that there was no basis to question the loyalty and patriotism of Japanese Americans.

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a grim chapter in America's history. Conducting this special resources study,

and the potential creation of the Tule Lake National Historic Site, will help ensure that we honor surviving internees during their lifetime and will serve as a lasting reminder of our ability to inflict pain and suffering upon our fellow Americans.

It is important that we recognize the historic significance of Tule Lake Segregation Center within the lifetimes of the few surviving Japanese-American internees, before many of their stories are lost.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the sake of our security, economy and environment, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that is independent of foreign energy sources and weans America off of fossil fuels.

Last year, I introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would address the many challenges across our economy to achieving sustainable energy independence. I am very hopeful that this Congress will soon take steps to bring forward a comprehensive energy bill that will address many of the areas I believe are essential to this effort. I have cosponsored many of the individual planks of this comprehensive effort, and today I want to address how we can ensure that this energy policy does not have an expiration date or fall short of its laudable goals.

Today I am introducing the Energy Independence Act.

The Energy Independence Act will deliver energy independence to Americans by providing an energy plan that has the capacity to change with innovation. My bill will ensure that our energy policy will increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of America's energy policy, and encourage our energy policy to adapt to our needs and abilities.

My bill will set a congressional goal of achieving energy independence by 2017. ``Energy independence'' is defined as meeting all but 10 percent of our energy needs from domestic energy sources. The bill will also set a congressional goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels by 2037.

My bill will also create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which will meet every two years starting in 2009, to evaluate our progress in efforts to become energy independent, and to recommend changes to be made in reports to Congress.

These are achievable goals.

Petroleum, mostly used for transportation, accounts for 84 percent of our imported energy. Transportation accounts for roughly 28 percent of our energy use. I support raising CAFE standards, and have cosponsored S. 357, legislation by Senator Feinstein which would raise these standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. Studies show that raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon would save over 36 billion gallons of gas per year, and creating efficiency standards for replacement tires would save more than 7 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Creating incentives for commuting by train or bus, and funding upgrades and new starts in public transit services, such as the purple line of the DC metro, will also make a difference--in an average year, the round trip to work uses over 250 gallons of gas and creates about 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

As part of a comprehensive energy bill we should also be mindful of the long-term effects of our energy policy on the environment, our landscape, and our health. I cosponsored S. 309, legislation by Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides for an economy-wide emissions cap and trade program. Enacting an economy-wide cap and trade program will ensure that our energy policy will be truly sustainable.

America currently gets only 6.3 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources. Current ideas for addressing this problem focus on trying to make the large up-front investment in infrastructure required to produce renewable energy less daunting, by creating a long-term market for renewable energy through increasing the Federal Government's use of renewables and creating a Federal renewable portfolio standard to make utilities offer renewable energy to American consumers, and by making incentives like the renewable production tax credit permanent. I support creating Federal renewable portfolio standard, and will cosponsor legislation to be offered by Senator Bingaman to do so. I have also cosponsored S. 590, Senator Smith's legislation that would extend solar tax incentives through 2016, while expanding these incentives to cover more of the up-front investment required to use solar energy.

In order to get to energy independence we must substantially increase our investment in energy research. I cosponsored S. 761, Senator Reid's America COMPETES Act, which will increase R&D funding for the Department of Energy, increase the DOE's emphasis on advanced energy research to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies, and implement recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences report Rising Above a Gathering Storm.

I will be advocating other areas of energy policy reform, including increasing funding for weatherization, providing incentives for telecommuting, and providing additional energy efficiency standards for appliances.

We can do better, and the one overarching theme in the quest for a sustainable, long-term energy policy is the need to be able to be flexible and change our energy policy to suit our needs, capacity, research and development. My bill will give us the ability to provide long-term, bipartisan solutions that will address our energy policy going forward, and give us the flexibility, and the considered solutions of experts, to give the American people the energy policy they deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for joining me in this effort. This is an important bill for tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries, for the physicians, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who treat them, and for the future of the Medicare program.

At the end of this year, providers will again face the prospect of an across-the-board cut in their Medicare reimbursements. The scheduled cut for 2008 is the largest ever, 9.9 percent. These cuts are the result of a flawed reimbursement system created in 1997 that uses the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, or SGR, to determine an acceptable increase in the growth of provider expenditures.

Medicare reimbursements increase when the previous year's payments do not exceed a target level that is based on the growth of our economy. However, when the previous year's payments exceed that target level, reimbursements are cut. According to MedPAC, the SGR formula would reduce Medicare provider reimbursements by 40 percent over the next eight years if Congress does not act. MedPAC is also concerned that over the next several years these reductions ``would threaten beneficiary access to physician services over time, particularly those provided by primary care physicians.'' MedPAC recognizes the importance of provider participation in the Medicare program, particularly in our rural and underserved urban areas where the decision to not accept new Medicare patients can make all the difference in seniors' access to medical care.

Congress recognizes this as well, and so we have intervened to prevent scheduled cuts resulting from SGR from taking effect. For all except the newest members of this body, this process of enacting a ``physician fix'' is a familiar scenario. For the past four years, Congress has acted to prevent these cuts to providers, usually through a last-minute provision added to a must-pass bill.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation implementing MedPAC's recommendations and calling for Congress to repeal the SGR formula and update provider reimbursements by the cost of care. Replacing SGR will require a thoughtful and protracted process involving the input of lawmakers and the provider community, and it is costly, but it is something that we must do.

The most recent ``fix'' was made to the 2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act, Public Law 109-432. That law froze payment rates, staving off an across-the-board cut of 5.1 percent. Congress also added a quality reporting system called the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative program PQRI, which made providers eligible for a bonus payment of 1.5 percent of their total allowed Medicare charges if they report to HHS on certain quality measures starting in July 2007.

This new system is also known as ``pay-for-reporting,'' and it is based on the concept that physicians should receive an increase in Medicare reimbursement only once they have participated in extensive quality reporting. Across my State, I have heard serious concerns that this will lead to a mandatory reporting system in the near future, and that we will soon see an untested ``pay-for-performance'' system in place.

Now, I think all my colleagues would agree that our seniors deserve the highest quality care. But in our quest for improved quality, we must answer two questions here: should we proceed with an untested system of reporting requirements just for the sake of reporting, and will we actually achieve better care for our seniors via the PQRI.

I am very concerned about implementing reporting requirements that have not been tested. I believe that we must have the right process in place for defining a quality reporting system for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by health care professionals. We should not be establishing reporting requirements for health professionals just for the sake of reporting, and we should not be moving forward with this system until we have adequate time to evaluate each stage of its development.

Current law does not provide sufficient time to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of this new system. Nor do they take into account the fact that most physicians and other health professionals have no experience in quality reporting and do not have in place the necessary health information technology and administrative infrastructures to participate in a reporting system.

The bill I am introducing today will assure that health professionals will be at the center of the process for defining areas where quality measures are needed, as well as for defining the relevant measures themselves. Why is this important? Health professionals must be actively engaged in developing and implementing an effective reporting system because they are on the front lines of health care delivery, and they best understand the nexus between care delivery and quality measurement. The development process for quality measures must be transparent and consistent for all health professionals because they are the ones who will determine its successful implementation.

Additionally, quality measures should be tested across a variety of specialties and practice settings before they are included in a reporting system because measures must be clinically valid to be relevant for defining quality, and because physicians and health professionals practice in a variety of settings, for example: small vs. large practices, urban vs. suburban vs. rural locations, office-based vs. hospital-base practices.

Most importantly, we should not be using hastily devised quality measures to justify reimbursement cuts. There are some who advocate pay-for-performance as a way to slow the growth of physician spending. They think we can accomplish lower physician expenditures by setting arbitrary standards and then cutting payments to physicians who fail to meet them. But across America, there are practices that would face tremendous obstacles in meeting such standards: they lack of the information technology necessary to document and report standards in a timely manner; they see patients with economic and language barriers that will result in higher noncompliance rates; they treat a patient population for whom ethnic and racial differences require different clinical interventions than for other patients. Ignoring these considerations will not only fail to dramatically improve quality, it will significantly penalize providers who treat traditionally underserved populations.

This bill provides an opportunity to thoughtfully and carefully develop effective quality measures that reflect differences in practice patterns, to share our findings, and to determine and encourage the most cost-effective methods of providing the highest quality care.

Rather than moving forward precipitously in 2008 with a permanent Medicare quality reporting system after a transitional 6-month period this year, as current law requires, our bill, the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007, instead would establish a more realistic timeline for quality measure reporting by health professionals. It does so by:

Requiring the Secretary first to evaluate the 6-month transitional reporting system and reporting findings to the Congress by June 1, 2008;

Requiring the Secretary to undertake demonstrations for defining appropriate mechanisms whereby health professionals may provide data on quality measures to the Secretary through an appropriate medical registry;

Allowing physicians and other eligible professionals to continue reporting to the Secretary quality measures developed for 2007, in order for the Secretary to refine systems for reporting quality measures;

After completion of the evaluation, phasing in a permanent Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Program, with implementation beginning January 1, 2010, based on a consistent set of rules that define an orderly and transparent process of quality measure development;

Requiring that the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement of the American Medical Association be the beginning point for the designation of clinical areas where quality measures are needed;

Having the Consortium, in collaboration with physician specialty organizations and other eligible professional organizations, develop and propose quality measures to a consensus organization such as the National Quality Forum for endorsement; and

Prohibiting the Secretary from using any measures that have not been recommended by the Consortium and endorsed by the consensus organization.

I am confident that with all of these measures we will achieve a successful and effective quality reporting system that will truly make a difference in the quality of care that our Medicare beneficiaries receive. At the end of this year, as Congress moves forward to address the physician reimbursement issue, I urge my colleagues to support this rational approach to promoting quality and guaranteeing access to care.

Mr. President, I rise with Senator Leahy, Senator Sanders, and Senator Mikulski to introduce legislation to address the continuing threat posed by cluster bombs to innocent civilians around the world.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use, sell or transfer cluster munitions: that have a failure rate of more than one percent; unless the rules of engagement or the agreement applicable to the sale or transfer of such cluster munitions specify that: the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets and; will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

The bill also requires the President to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees on the plan, including estimated costs, by either the United States Government or the government to which U.S. cluster bombs are sold or transferred to clean up unexploded cluster bombs.

Finally, the bill includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use, sale, or transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States.

The human death toll and injury from these weapons are felt everyday. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off.

Last November, the International Committee for the Red Cross called for a ban on the use of cluster bombs in highly populated areas. They joined other leading organizations who have also decried the indiscriminate use of these weapons: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Friends Committee on National Legislation,

Handicap International, and Landmine Action.

Several countries, including Belgium, Germany, and Norway have either instituted a ban or a moratorium on the use and procurement of cluster bombs. More than 30 countries are actively calling for increased international controls on the weapon.

And next week, Norway will host an international conference to explore the possibility of a international treaty to ban certain types of cluster munitions and provide support for the victims of the weapons.

We need to adjust our policies for their use and can do so easily.

Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are injured due to unexploded cluster bombs.

From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple life, hope, and peace.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor covering over a half mile radius.

Yet, in practice, they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate.

The non-profit group Handicap International studied the effects of cluster bombs in 24 countries and regions, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Laos, and Lebanon.

Its report found that civilians make up 98 percent of those killed or injured by cluster bombs. 27 percent of the casualties are children.

As the report shows, cluster bombs end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping.

They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play.

They end up in homes where families live.

In some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball.

Children, outside with their friends and relatives, come across these cluster bombs, pick them up because they look a ball, and start playing with them.

A terrible result often follows as these stories demonstrate.

On March 25, 2003 Abdallah Yaqoob was sleeping in his bed in his family's home in Basra, Iraq when he was hit by shrapnel from a cluster munition strike that hit his neighborhood.

He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely injured. Abdallah was hit by British L20A1/M85 munition.

Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground-launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003.

The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel through his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs. Source: Bonnie Docherty/Human Rights Watch.

Hassan Hammade, a 13 year old Lebanese boy, lost four fingers and sustained injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an unexploded cluster bomb in front of an orange tree.

He said, ``I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of metal.'' Source: Christian Science Monitor.

All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play on the main roads or in our homes.

These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, de facto landmines.

Instead of targeting troop formations and enemy armor, unexploded bomblets target innocent civilians, seriously maiming or killing their victims.

This runs counter to our values and counter to the laws of war.

Make no mistake, the impact of unexploded cluster bombs on civilian populations has been devastating.

In Laos alone there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs, leftovers from U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since the war ended. Source: International Committee for the Red Cross.

In the first Gulf War, 61,000 cluster bombs were used containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500.

In Afghanistan in 2001, 1,228 cluster bombs with 248,056 bomblets were used. Between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians were killed by them, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with nearly 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second Gulf Wars, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region is approximately 1.2 million.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991. Source: Human Rights Watch.

What gives rise, in part, to my bill are recent developments in Lebanon over alleged use of cluster bombs by Israel.

It is estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets in southern Lebanon and 1 million of these bomblets failed to explode.

As Lebanese children and families have returned to their homes and begin to rebuild, they have been exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble.

22 people, including six children have been killed and 133, including 47 children, injured.

One United Nations official estimates that 40 percent of the cluster bombs launched by Israel in Southern Lebanon failed to explode.

So far, more than 58,000 unexploded bomblets in Lebanon have been destroyed but it will take 12 to 15 months to complete the effort. Source: United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon.

Looking at these figures it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets.

The number is indeed staggering and the consequences are real.

Each death that results from an unexploded American bomblet weakens American diplomacy and American values.

How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in these countries when we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill boys and girls?

How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, and ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs?

Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much harder.

And it is not just a humanitarian problem, it is a military problem.

By showering targets with cluster bombs, we ensure that our troops will face thousands of unexploded bomblets as they move forward.

This will force them to change course and slow the mission.

During the Iraq war, U.S. troops would fire six rockets containing 4,000 bomblets to eliminate one artillery piece in a civilian neighborhood. With a 16 percent dud rate, approximately 640 duds were left behind. Source: Human Rights Watch.

As an August 2003 Wall Street Journal article noted: ``Unexploded bomblets render significant swaths of battlefield off-limits to advancing U.S. troops.''

In fact, during the first Gulf War, unexploded cluster munitions killed 22 U.S. troops--6 percent of total U.S. fatalities--and injured 58.

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen recognized the threat cluster bombs posed to civilians and U.S. troops alike and issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen Policy.

It stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster bomb would have a failure rate of less than one percent.

This was an important step forward but we must remember that we still have 5.5 million cluster bombs in our arsenals containing 728.5 million bomblets. That is, we are still prepared to use an enormous amount of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates. That is unacceptable.

Let me be clear. While this legislation prohibits the sale, use, or transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, it does include a national security waiver to allow the President to waive the restriction.

Instead of exercising the waiver, I would hope that administration would work with Congress to extend the Cohen Policy to the entire U.S. cluster bomb arsenal.

During the 1990s, a comprehensive pact was forged to protect civilians from land mines worldwide. The United States and the international community have since spent millions to remove mines in post-conflict regions.

There is no question there should be a similar program for cluster bombs.

Simply put, this legislation will save lives--civilians and soldiers alike--and will help save the reputation of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation to reauthorize the extraordinarily successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for two additional years.

Without Congressional action, this important stamp will expire on December 31 of this year.

This stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be highly effective.

Since 1998, over 747 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold--raising $53.76 million for breast cancer research.

California continues to be one of the leading contributors, purchasing over 47 million stamps with $3.6 million going to research-- almost 15 percent of the nationwide contribution.

Furthermore, in September 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report showing that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been a success and an effective fund-raiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease.

The report also indicated that ``grants funded by NIH and DOD using Breast Cancer Research Stamp proceeds have produced significant findings in breast cancer research.''

The National Institutes for Health and the Department of Defense have received approximately $36.7 million and $15.7 million, respectively, putting these research dollars to good use by funding innovative advances in breast cancer research.

For example, a 2002 Department of Defense Concept Award enabled researchers to develop Medical Hyperspectral Imaging (MHSI) technology. This method of imaging helps surgeons determine if they have removed all cancerous tissue during breast cancer surgery.

Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives.

One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this terrible disease and the need for additional research funding.

There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our nation: breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among women after skin cancer. More than three million women are living with breast cancer in the U.S. today, one million of who have yet to be diagnosed. Though much less common, over 1,700 men were diagnosed with breast cancer last year.

This legislations would: extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for two additional years--until December 31, 2009; allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research; not affect any other semi- postal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another two years.

Until a cure is found, the money from the sale of this unique postal stamp will continue to focus public awareness on this devastating disease and provide hope to breast cancer survivors.

We ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the Record.

Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It provides widespread access to information that can change the way we communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be broadband for all.

But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration. In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost. While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The broadband bottom line is that too many of our international counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs.

In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts.

That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This, in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen.

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

Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi- billion dollar industry.

Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25 million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors, cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed, research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st century's greatest resource, the Internet.

However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic, fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5 years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race.

That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60 million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government users.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in the weeks ahead.

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

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S. registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S. flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade. Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime security payments in return for making these vessels available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1. built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December 2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These 13 ships normally

operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S. flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help American workers and companies.

The bill that I am introducing, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing efforts to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. Regrettably, this law contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign-made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing law by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods with little or no accountability. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 90,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my State since 2000. And the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows that Congress needs to do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods.

There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them. The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a contract up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowestpriced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on a regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source-- including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas.

The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of

a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically.

My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and the Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act, a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies.

Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that ``American-made'' means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent.

In addition, my bill would put in place for the next five years the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was included again by this body as an amendment to the recent minimum wage bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign--and domestic--made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process. This reporting requirement seeks to hold agencies accountable by requiring agencies to report on their foreign-made purchases and make that information available to Congress and the American public.

The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act, including the type of waiver used; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet.

Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all Federal agencies.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

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