A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important piece of legislation.

As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately, and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.

The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress, H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment.

Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other emergencies.''

The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently obtain emergency disaster funds.

After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events. Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.

I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem. Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was astonishing.

One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved ones in that terrible storm.

Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly 1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the storm. People in jail were being sent checks.

You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.

In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also, in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross. One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13 different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.

As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged 525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these

crooks, but they have asked us for this additional tool. They have asked us to pass this legislation so that the Federal statute adequately addresses and deters fraud in connection with emergency disaster assistance.

The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality. We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the American people who intended to help those in need.

The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.

Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm, and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line, and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:

Senator, all I have is what is on my back.

Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail claiming they deserve displaced housing money.

So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer. Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their generosity.

In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit-- including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though, changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial institutions.

My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.

I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10 minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they suffered.

Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it is a despicable crime, to me.

The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as victims.

I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.

It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising. I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.

Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and to protect American taxpayers.

By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.

I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking forward to an analysis of it.

We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move forward with.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a series of bills that are important to economic development along our long coastline. Most of these bills were either included in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006 or has passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, much to my great disappointment, the larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 109th Congress. My hope is that all of these noncontroversial bills will be included in the WRDA legislation in the 110th Congress.

Importantly, all of my bills are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers.

The first bill pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, ME. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel.

My second bill concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the Nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreline facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.

My third bill addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill supports the city of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area.

My fourth bill, that passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill last year, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Mid-coast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways.

The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the city and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience.

Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers.

The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million dollars a year in the state.

I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and business people with the vision and commitment needed to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.

I am reintroducing my fifth bill for the Town of Rockport--this request came in after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed out the WRDA bill in the last Congress. It would deauthorize a part of the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on the active Mid-Coast of Maine, has requested that Congress decommission a 35 foot by 275 foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would replace the current temporary float system.

My sixth bill for reintroduction today is a bill for the City of Saco, Maine that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a modification or de-authorization of the Federal Navigational Project to resolve the issue.

The US Army Corps of Engineers suggested language that re-designates the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs of the community. The language will allow for the legal moorage of boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the city of Saco as is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. The two mayors of the cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the Corps' language.

It is my hope that all of these non-controversial provisions will be included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and I am writing Senator Boxer, the new Chairwoman of the EPW Committee requesting inclusion of my bills in the upcoming WRDA bill. I am pleased to hear that she is also anxious for the WRDA bill to move forward just as quickly as possible. It has been six long years since our last WRDA bill was signed into law--much too long even for the patient people in Maine who want to urgently move forward on economic development for their coastal communities.

Also, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bill with Senator Collins that addresses the project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, ME. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River navigational project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests.

Studies have shown that the Army Corps jetty, built over 100 years ago, has contributed to beach erosion and the loss of more than thirty houses to the sea. The houses in danger currently were once six rows back from the water. When the mitigation project is completed, it is hoped that it will protect the residents, households, and businesses along the shoreline adjacent to the Army Corps jetty in Saco.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2007. This bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill.

There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and promote alternatives to petroleum-based fuels in transportation.

The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all, as a domestically-produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs.

My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions promote the production of ethanol from a broad variety of plentiful and low-cost biomass including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry wastes woody municipal wastes and dedicated energy crops.

The viability of ethanol is reflected in the rapid expansion of its production

and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent annually for the past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term potential to become a very significant energy source for transportation is gaining attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol can contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in the future. Several of my Senate colleagues have joined me to introduce S. 23, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, which calls for increased access to ethanol at the pump and greatly expanded production of flexible-fuel vehicles. The Act also provides a directive for domestic production of renewable fuels to reach 60 billion gallons a year by 2030. I am especially proud of the leadership role that my State of Iowa and communities across rural America are going to play in this expansion.

Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should be considered due to the potential economic and environmental advantages this alternative might offer as compared to shipment by highway, rail tanker, or barge. As production volumes increase, especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the country. Pipeline shipping could provide for reduced vehicle emissions and superior energy efficiency compared to rail or tanker shipment.

For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport of ethanol as early as 2015. The current state of knowledge regarding transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. Although it is being done in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol, challenges remain. The water solubility of ethanol introduces technical and operational issues that affect the shipment of ethanol in multi- product pipelines. Thus, the largest associated research costs will be in the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction of the first ethanol pipelines. This work may well take as long as a decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to develop a solid understanding of this ethanol transport option.

This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A systematic analysis of these issues will provide the substantive information necessary to assess the costs and benefits of this transport alternative. The Act would allow DOE the option of funding private sector studies or conducting the studies on its own. The results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to understand what policies or programs might be appropriate to promote the most cost-effective and environmentally sound ethanol transport into the future.

We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to take into account the full range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. The rapid growth of ethanol production and use necessitates the very near- term study of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, along with the numerous letters of support I have received from advocacy organizations, be printed in the Record. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me once again to introduce ETHA. I thank her for the steadfast support she has shown people living with HIV. This terrible illness knows no party affiliation, and I am pleased to say that ETHA's 20 cosponsors span both sides of the aisle.

ETHA provides States the ability to extend Medicaid coverage to low- income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid. Nearly 50 percent of people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 5,700 persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV disease. I believe it is our moral responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that all people living with HIV--regardless of their income or their insurance status--have access to timely, effective treatment.

Unfortunately, safety net programs across the country are running out of money, and as a consequence, they are generally unable to cover all of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. For instance, Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) is experiencing significant financial hardship due to years of inadequate funding. As a consequence, the program has been forced to impose burdensome cost-sharing requirements and limit the scope of drugs it covers on its formulary. Fortunately, Oregon's ADAP has not had to resort to service waiting lists, a cost control mechanism that many States have been forced to adopt. As safety net programs like ADAP continue to struggle, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals.

I believe ETHA represents a promising opportunity to turn the tide against this devastating epidemic. In 2005, there were 220 newly infected HIV cases reported in my home State of Oregon. If we were able to provide even a fraction of those individuals access to early treatment, we could prevent the progression of their condition to full- blown AIDS. Experience has shown that current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people living with the disease.

Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC) support providing early healthcare to individuals diagnosed with HIV because it has both the potential to save lives and control costs. Specifically, providing individuals coverage through ETHA could reduce the death rate of persons living with HIV by more than half. Similarly encouraging is the potential cost-savings ETHA could generate in the Medicaid program. Due to its preventive aim, ETHA is estimated to begin saving the Medicaid program $31.7 million each year after the effects of expanded access to care are fully realized.

I believe ETHA is a key example of the type of reform Congress needs to be implementing to the federal entitlements. The short term investment required to expand Medicaid coverage will ultimately result in significant long-term savings to the program--at no harm to the beneficiary. But most importantly, ETHA takes an important step toward ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care they need to lead healthy, productive lives for as long as possible.

One of the strongest features of ETHA is the enhanced Federal Medicaid match rate it provides to encourage States to expand coverage to individuals diagnosed with HIV. This provision closely models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to people with HIV.

HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of Americans from a variety of backgrounds. Some get the proper medications they need to keep healthy, but far too many do not. The inability to access life-saving treatment literally creates a ``life and death'' situation for many of our most vulnerable citizens. Fortunately, ETHA can give those individuals access to the care they need so they can look forward to a long, healthy life.

I again want to thank the strong group of bipartisan Senators that is joining me as original cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country that have expressed support for this bill, in particular, Oregon's Cascade AIDS Project. The work they do on behalf of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in my home State is truly commendable, and I appreciate the support they have shown ETHA over the years.

Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue, patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every day.

That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help citizens who want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by commuting to work by bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin, Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and Sanders.

I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and get on their bicycles instead.

According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise; avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe.

Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists.

The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes.

This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who ride their bikes to and from their jobs.

Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co- sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to offer to those who take mass transit or drive.

In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every day.

When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their jobs.

I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road to oil independence by biking to work.

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