Social Security Number Fraud and Identity Theft Prevention Act

Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.

States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the

constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs.

Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.

Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 19 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was ten years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million.

The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.

Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.

This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for states that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home.

Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters-- those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of federal assistance.

This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country.

Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier, so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them--the goal of strengthening the family unit.

Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain an immigrant visas to enter the country.

We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, an oversight in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they cannot take advantage of this family reunification provision.

Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises when these U.S. citizens have minor siblings. Since they do not qualify as an ``immediate relative,'' the minor siblings are denied admission. So, a young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his or her five year old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are effectively prevented from coming to this country as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of immediate relative.

For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekom Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were living in Nigeria, be admitted to as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because their six-year-old daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.

It is difficult to determine the full extent of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the number reaching into the hundreds each year. So, this change will not lead to an influx of many immigrants, but it will reunite a number of families who have unnecessarily been kept apart.

If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue now.

Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relative'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an unfortunate problem that too many families have already had to face. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending discussion and debate in the Senate about subsidies to the auto manufacturers and whether passing a large bailout subsidy package for the auto manufacturers is a good idea. Earlier this afternoon I objected to a unanimous consent request by Senator Mikulski and she responded to that objection by noting that she certainly hoped that objecting to a bailout package for auto manufacturers wasn't the last thing I did in the Senate, given that my term is going to be expiring and I am going to be retiring from the Senate. Well, it won't be the last thing I do. If nothing else, the last thing I will do is to explain why her legislation was such a terrible idea to the people of New Hampshire who elected me and to the American people whom I think I have an obligation to serve in making sure that their interests are protected, that their wallets are protected, and that we act with a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

We don't need to be providing subsidies, special benefits or protection to individual businesses, whether they are auto manufacturers or any other business. This is wrong for a large number of reasons. To be sure, no one is happy about the fact that our country is in a recession, that Europe is in a recession, that we have a global slowdown that will affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives across the United States and across the world. But by providing subsidies to the auto manufacturers, we do several things that are fundamentally wrong--bad for our economy, bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers.

First, quite frankly, we reward bad decisions that have been made by these firms themselves. The problems within the auto industry are largely the making of those in the auto industry: management choices, production of models that consumers choose not to buy, legacy costs, contracts, health care, pensions. We all understand that within the economic slowdown there has been a significant drop in the number of cars being manufactured, but these businesses were losing money well before the current downturn. By stepping forward now to provide them with $25 billion or $50 billion, depending on which piece of legislation we would be considering and voting on, we, quite frankly, would be taking money from taxpayers across the country and rewarding those poor decisions that have been made by the manufacturers themselves.

Second, this would set a bad precedent. There are many businesses across America that are dealing with tough times, a slowdown in their growth prospects. They have had to deal with layoffs. They have seen a significant slowdown in construction spending or consumer spending. It is affecting every corner of our economy. If we set the precedent of stepping forward with $25 billion in subsidies for auto manufacturers, every other business and industry in America would be looking for the same kind of treatment from the Federal Government. That is simply not in the taxpayers' interests. It is certainly not fair to the average taxpayer. It is not fair to those taxpayers who work for companies that won't get that kind of special treatment. Any time the Federal Government starts putting a significant amount of resources--$1 billion, $10 billion, $25 billion--into a particular firm or industry we distort the marketplace. So we would be rewarding bad decisions. We would be setting a bad precedent.

Finally, we would be placing taxpayers at even greater risk. We need to be honest about the impact of giving $25 billion to the auto manufacturers in order to sustain their unprofitable operations. Many observers have suggested that $25 billion isn't nearly enough, $50 billion probably isn't enough to stave off bankruptcy. So when these firms ultimately did have to file for bankruptcy or when the losses mounted over the next 6 months or 12 months or 18 months and the firms needed additional capital, where would they turn? Back to the taxpayer. So the expectation would be--and I think the likelihood would be--that the $25 billion or $50 billion provided today would simply be a downpayment on even greater losses and greater exposure to the taxpayers in the future.

Now, the proponents of this legislation have said a number of things. First and foremost, they have talked about the number of jobs that would be affected. No one relishes the idea of higher unemployment and job losses that have already begun in this current recession. But there are many businesses and industries across America that employ hundreds of thousands of people, that employ even more than the auto manufacturing segment. The

three largest technology-based firms in the country employ nearly twice as many people as the auto manufacturers. The three largest firms in the financial services industry employ hundreds of thousands more than the auto manufacturers do. These businesses and industries such as the auto manufacturers have their own customers and suppliers and vendors and contractors who would also be affected by the slowdown or by layoffs at those businesses.

We care about the auto manufacturers. We care about manufacturing. We care about every job in our economy, because each job is important to that worker, their family, and their dependents. But we can't be providing unique benefits, unique treatment to one business at the expense of others and at the expense of taxpayers.

A second argument that has been made is that since we passed a financial stabilization package a month ago, we should be willing to keep passing additional subsidy or bailout legislation. I think we need to understand that taking the action we took when the credit markets in the United States and across the world froze was action taken only with the greatest imaginable reluctance, and it was only taken to protect access to credit for a home loan or car loan, a small business loan that our economy needs to function every single day. Moreover, only action of the Federal Government--and the European governments as well--only that action could provide the capital or had the capacity to provide the capital necessary to enable those credit markets to function normally again. And they have begun to function more normally today.

Now, normal functioning of credit markets doesn't guarantee economic growth in this quarter or next quarter, but it does prevent a collapse of the credit system that our economy needs to operate on a daily basis.

So I think the arguments that there are jobs at stake in the auto industry is a false argument, because there are jobs at stake in every corner of our economy. The argument that an economic recovery package passed last month is justification for these kinds of subsidies to other manufacturers is mistaken as well, because that was legislation designed to protect every family, every business in America, given the unique crisis we have had in our credit markets.

Our economy is built on the idea of freedom, transparency, and entrepreneurship. I think we should never forget that. We have the freest economy in the world. If you look at the freest and most open economies in the world and compare them to their more heavily regulated counterparts, in every measure, free and open, transparent markets performed better than their more heavily regulated counterparts. I think there is a lesson here: that we should avoid Government intervention wherever possible. We should minimize the cost of regulation wherever possible. Of course, we should avoid legislation such as that being proposed for the auto manufacturers that would intervene and subsidize bad economics, poor performance, and bad management choices.

I hope this legislation will be dealt with in an appropriate way. I hope my colleagues will see the value in protecting the taxpayers by opposing this kind of intervention, this kind of unnecessary subsidy. A lot of people have made the observation that a failure to pass subsidy legislation would make bankruptcy for the auto manufacturers more likely, and that may well be the case. But the bankruptcy protection process is designed to allow firms, large and small, to reorganize, to restructure, to establish a better, more effective business model, a better system for producing the kinds of products customers want, for delivering the services our economy needs, improving efficiency and, in doing so, provide strong, well-paying jobs that are secure for as many of their employees as possible and for an employment base that suits the marketplace. But when you have a business model that has been proven to be as problematic as those of the large three auto manufacturers, sometimes bankruptcy protection is the best possible methodology for restructuring, reorganizing, and putting together a firm that is more competitive and stronger and healthier for the long term.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these issues. I think it is important that we protect our economy to the greatest extent possible by keeping taxes on capital low, by creating a Tax Code and a regulatory structure that encourages manufacturing and investment, that rewards entrepreneurship, but none of these things requires that we single out one firm or one business over another for a handout or a subsidy at the cost of the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the regular order of business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire who just spoke for his leadership in the Congress, and it has been a pleasure serving with him. I also will be retiring, but one of the people I will miss is John Sununu from New Hampshire, because I think he has contributed a lot to the process.

I wish to also take a moment to bring to your attention and the attention of my colleagues an issue I have worked hard to address in legislation I proposed this Congress. The issue is identity theft. I was hopeful Congress would pass legislation that addresses the problem of unauthorized foreign workers stealing Social Security numbers and then using the numbers to obtain employment and then, eventually, accruing Social Security benefits.

Almost 2 years ago, I introduced S. 699. It is legislation that facilitated the sharing of existing information among government agencies in instances where the infrastructure, if shared, could expose cases of identity fraud. Unfortunately, my bill stalled in committee and has not since received further action. Congress's failure to enact such legislation is disappointing, because it has left in place existing law which is ineffectual in deterring unauthorized foreign workers from stealing the identity of citizens--that is Americans--and nationals. Individuals continue to engage in this activity in violation of our criminal laws as well as our immigration laws while also defrauding Social Security and citizens.

Identity theft continues to plague our country at an alarming rate.

If there was ever any doubt, let last week's discovery--in Weld County, Colorado--of 1,300 stolen Social Security numbers by illegal immigrants serve as a reminder of the pervasiveness of this problem. A single additional case of an unauthorized worker stealing a U.S. citizen's identity is one case too many, for it is well within the Federal Government's ability to stop this rampant problem. If my legislation had been enacted, the 1,300 illegal aliens using fraudulent Social Security numbers and resulting in more than $2.6 million in stolen tax dollars would have caught the attention of law enforcement much sooner.

Last week, after an intense and lengthy investigation by the Weld County Sheriff s Office, the Greeley Police Department, and District Attorney Ken Buck's office, a series of arrests began in a case that is far-reaching and has national implications.

What is upsetting is that Congress has had foresight about the devastating effects of identity theft. We have also been educated, notably by Secretary Chertoff, of the susceptibility for citizens' identities to be stolen by aliens that are in the United States illegally and without authorization to work. I introduced legislation that recognizes the compelling need to modify the law in order to allow our Government both to enforce immigration laws and also protect the victims of identity theft. Under the current law, by the time identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify. Several individuals had been using her I.D. number, and each individual's salary was then being reported to Social Security. As a result, her income was recorded much higher than

what she was receiving. If the discrepancy had been discovered earlier, before she had applied for her housing grants, there would have been an opportunity to address the disparity before she became a victim twice over.

What is incredible is that the Federal Government, specifically the Internal Revenue Service, is enabling this. Under current policy, the IRS is under no obligation to share information with other agencies upon the discovery of a Social Security number being used with multiple names or in the case where it is discovered that an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year.

I propose to allow the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary of Homeland Security, where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security misuse or violations of immigration law. It is worth noting Secretary Chertoff supports my proposal, believing it is a practical solution that overcomes the current limitations on information sharing.

Despite the force of these arguments supporting legislation that tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies, Congress has so far rejected Secretary Chertoff's call for a legislative solution.

The 1,300 cases of suspected stolen identities exposed in Weld County alone were brought to light after authorities discovered that an illegal immigrant accused of stealing and using a man's Social Security number to get jobs, loans, and other services, had also been filing and receiving tax returns from the Federal Government. It did not take long for investigators to come to the realization that this particular illegal immigrant's suspected use of stolen identity was not an isolated case. As it turns out, these 1,300 other illegal immigrants filed tax returns using the same tax preparer based in Greeley. This is one tax preparer handling 1,300 fraudulent returns. Take a moment and consider the 1,300 illegal aliens' tax returns, which yielded $2.6 million in tax refunds, were handled by a single tax preparer; now consider the number of tax preparers nationwide and the exorbitant amount of tax dollars--likely in the billions--distributed among illegal aliens using fraudulent Social Security numbers. The way our system works, the tax preparer is relieved of liability, absent reckless misrepresentation or a finding of exceptional negligence.

With whom should the liability lie? The obvious answer is the illegal alien guilty of stealing someone else's identity. But what happens to the helpless victim of the identity theft? Shouldn't our law protect the person who has had their identity compromised, and shouldn't our Federal agencies be required to communicate information about an individual's compromised identity before the individual is robbed of opportunities such as taking out a student loan, purchasing a home, or purchasing tools or equipment with a small business loan? Shouldn't we do all that we can to prevent law-abiding citizens falling victim to identity theft?

Occurrences of identity theft perpetrated by illegal immigrants have risen and will continue to rise as better systems are developed for verifying employment. Illegal immigrants will continue to assume the names and Government-issued ID numbers of American citizens in order to thwart detection at workplaces, get driver's licenses and obtain credit. Once a person takes a job in the U.S., one of the first things his employer will likely ask for is his Social Security number. The integrity of the immigration system depends on the genuineness of our efforts to protect citizens from immigrant-related identity fraud. Identity theft prevention and immigration enforcement will be greatly enhanced by legislation that permits the sharing of social security data among agencies.

The Weld County Tax I.D. case is just the tip of the iceberg. If more than 1,300 illegal immigrants can receive more than $2.6 million in tax refunds using stolen Social Security numbers in a community of 100,000 people, how many other cases exist throughout the country? It adds insult to injury that a legislative solution is easily within reach of Congress.

I know we have a lot on our plate this week, but I would ask the Senate to act to close this loophole.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill.

Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned.

These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans.

However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight.

The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities.

Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day.

The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground.

When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy.

Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions.

Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away.

This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job.

Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops.

We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 16 bipartisan

cosponsors, to introduce the S. 700. Approximately 1 year ago, Senator Lincoln and I introduced the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA, an earlier bill to amend the Endangered Species Act or ESA. S. 700 is an updated version of the Endangered Species Recovery Act or ESRA, which we introduced on December 6, 2006. Like ESRA, S. 700 does not amend the current ESA, but builds on ideas set forth in the original CRESA. It creates policies that finance the recovery of endangered species by private landowners. S. 700 makes it simpler for landowners to get involved in conservation and reduces the conflict that often emanates from the ESA. It will be an important codification of much-needed incentives to help recover endangered species. And, since the introduction of CRESA 1 year ago, I'm proud to count over 100 different species and landowner organizations and advocates that have partnered with us in support of this important tax legislation.

Over 80 percent of endangered species live on private property. Under the current law, however, there are too few incentives and too many obstacles for private landowners to participate in conservation agreements to help recover species. S. 700, like the voluntary farm bill conservation programs that inspired its creation, will make it more attractive for private landowners to contribute to the recovery of species under the ESA.

This bill resulted from effective and inclusive collaboration among key stakeholders most affected by the implementation of the ESA. Landowner interests include farmers, ranchers, and those from the natural resource-using communities. For example, some current supporters of S. 700 who contributed invaluable advice are the American Farm Bureau and the Society of American Foresters. This could not rightly be called a collaborative project without the vital and necessary input received from the Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense and the National Wildlife Federation--key environmental groups that made significant contributions. They understand that landowner must be treated as allies to ensure success in the long-run for the conservation of habitat and species. Finally, while the genesis of this bill has many roots, a passionate catalyst was James Cummins of Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, whose great concern for the outdoors provided inspiration to move these ideas forward.

These experts worked together to craft S. 700, which provides new tax incentives for private landowners who voluntarily contribute to the recovery of endangered species. The tax credits will reimburse landowners for property rights affected by agreements that include conservation easements and costs incurred by species management plans.

For landowners who limit their property rights through conservation easements, there will be 100 percent compensation of all costs. That percentage declines to 75 percent for 30-year easements and 50 percent for cost-share agreements.

It is worth noting that this is the same formula that works successfully for farm bill programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. Private property owners are appropriately rewarded for crucial ecological services that they provide on their property. The public benefits from these services, which ensure biodiversity. While the primary returns from this investment are protection and recovery of endangered species, the public will also undoubtedly gain additional benefits such as aesthetically pleasing open space, a reduction in the number of invasive species and enhanced water quality.

The legislation provides a list of options that give landowners a choice--a crucial element for the success of this proposal. For some landowners, a conservation easement will be the most attractive option. Easements are flexible tools that can be tailored to each landowner and species' interests. An easement restricts certain activities, but it still works well with traditional rural activities such as ranching and farming. For agreements without easements, there is flexibility to do what is necessary for the concerned species without the need to sacrifice property rights into perpetuity.

The tax credits provide essential funding that is necessary to respect private property rights. Wildlife should be an asset rather than a liability, which is how it has sometimes been viewed under the ESA. With wildlife becoming valuable to a landowner, those who may have been reluctant to participate in recovery efforts in the past will be more likely to contribute with these new incentives. When people want to take part in the process and do not fear it, the likelihood of conflict and litigation is reduced. For years, this type of conflict has proven costly not only financially to individuals and the government, but also in terms of relationships between people who share the land and natural resources. With a new trust and new model for finding conservation solutions, we can improve and expand our conservation work.

Provisions have been made to accommodate landowners whose taxes may be less than the tax credit provides. Partnerships in the agreements will allow any party to an agreement to receive a credit as long as they pay or incur costs as a result of the agreement. This language will allow creative collaboration among governments, landowners, taxpayers and environmentalists, further increasing the number of people involved in finding new solutions for conservation.

Furthermore, this bill also expands tax deductions for any landowner who takes part in the recovery plans approved under the ESA, and allows landowners to exclude from taxable income certain Federal payments under conservation cost-share programs. This will allow both individuals and businesses to deduct the cost of recovery work without bureaucratic obstacles.

This bill not only sets forth the financing for private landowners, but it also makes it easier to implement the agreements. Landowners will receive technical assistance to implement the agreements. Also, to remove some legal disincentives to recover species, liability protection may be provided to protect the landowners from penalties under the ESA. This removes the fear of trying to help endangered species. Currently, more species usually just means more liability for a landowner.

As a result of these incentives, I expect to see a phenomenal increase in the number of success stories. These stories will sound familiar to those creative collaborators working on the ground now where we have learned that the types of tools provided in this bill can work if offered consistently.

The Endangered Species Recovery Act is very exciting to those of us who value protecting our natural resources. It provides collaborative, creative ways to balance conservation with economic uses of our natural resources. It also preserves rural ways of life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with this legislation which will provide a new model for conservation to do better work. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with this legislation.

I am deeply grateful to my colleagues from Arkansas, Iowa and Montana for their essential expertise and support to create S. 700. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.