[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4697-S4707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2818. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on automatic shower
cleaners; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would temporarily reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners on
behalf of S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, WI.
I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in
our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has
enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps
manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2000, Wisconsin has been hit
hard, losing 90,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing sector
is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and higher standards of
living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods.
And the production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so
many American families healthy and strong.
This legislation would reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners,
an input S.C. Johnson refines to make high quality and affordable
shower cleaners that eliminate the build-up of tough soap scum, mold,
and mildew stains for the U.S. market. S.C. Johnson was created in 1886
as a parquet flooring company and today is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of household products including Ziploc storage
containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect repellant, and Glade
fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 12,000 people and provides
products in more than 110 countries around the world. In January of
2006, S.C. Johnson was awarded the Ron Brown Award for Corporate
Leadership for its outstanding achievements in employee and community
relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ELECTRIC AUTOMATIC SHOWER CLEANERS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
[[Page S4698]]
`` 9902.98.08 Bath and shower 2.1% No change No change On or before 12/ ''.
cleaner electric 31/2009
device that
dispenses a
dilute solution
of detergents and
bleach
alternative into
a shower
enclosure using a
button activated,
battery powered
piston pump
controlled by a
microchip that
automatically
releases a
measured amount
of solution on
demand (provided
for in subheading
8509.80.00)......
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2821. A bill to repeal the imposition of withholding on certain
payments made to vendors by government entities; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2821, the
Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006. Today, President Bush signed into
law H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of
2005, and this afternoon, I am making good on a promise I made on the
Senate floor last week--to repeal the expanded withholding tax
contained in H.R. 4297 to ensure that the bill does what its title
claims, that is, prevents tax Increases.
Americans have been asking for tax relief. Congress answered this
call, in part, when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and
dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts--
contained in H.R. 4297 will assist small businesses, encourage the kind
of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure
fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be
left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy.
Alongside these tax relief provisions, however, conferees inserted a
sweeping new withholding requirement that will raise taxes by nearly $7
billion. This bill seems to have a history of that. When the original
tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, it contained a windfall
profits tax provision that would have imposed an additional $4.923
billion tax on the energy industry. I voted against it because the bill
that was supposed to provide tax relief actually raised taxes. Although
the conferees stripped this provision in conference, they replaced it
with an even bigger tax hike--section 511's expanded withholding
requirement.
Section 511 of H.R. 4297 imposes a new mandatory 3 percent
withholding requirement on all payments for goods and services made to
Federal, State, and local contractors. The provision, which is the
largest revenue raiser in the bill, represents a significant shift in
U.S. tax policy.
Withholding has not always been around. Despite predominant public
opposition, Congress enacted mandatory withholding on Federal income
tax in 1943 in order to fund World War II. As a result, tax collections
jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to $43 billion in 1945. That is an
increase of $35.7 billion in just 4 years. In congressional hearings on
the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be
``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of
lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the
tax burden on the public.
Congress sought to expand withholding to dividends and interest in
1982, and public opposition was so profound that it was repealed 1 year
later. Now, proponents of section 511's expanded withholding
requirement say that it is necessary to close a ``tax loophole'' that
allows taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such
``loophole''--the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has simply failed to
do its job of collecting.
Information-reporting requirements are already in place to assist the
IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are required to make
an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as
individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency
that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting
the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be
paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding
would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers'
dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of
collecting them, too.
The costs of section 511 are high--so high, in fact, that the
Congressional Budget Office said that the provision constitutes an
unfunded mandate on the State and local governments, exceeding the
annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The
provision will also cause the cost of doing business to go up. A 3-
percent withholding on multibillion dollar contracts--for as long as 15
months, held interest-free--will affect cash flows, investment, and
cause businesses to raise prices in order to make up for losses,
thereby putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage.
Consider the Federal contract totals for Idaho and California alone. In
fiscal year 2004, Idaho's nondefense contracts totaled $1.1 billion,
and in fiscal year 2005, the State's defense contracts added up to $154
million. In fiscal year 2004, California's nondefense contracts totaled
$9.4 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State had $30.9 billion in
defense contracts.
The bill that I am introducing today, the Withholding Tax Relief Act
of 2006, will repeal the $7 billion withholding tax contained in H.R.
4297. Tax relief should not be coupled with tax increases, and I will
continue to work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's
title, ``Tax Increase Prevention.'' This bill is a first step. I urge
my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2821
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN
PAYMENTS MADE TO VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES.
The amendment made by section 511 of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such
amendment had never been enacted.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, and
Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2825. A bill to establish grant programs to improve the health of
border area residents and for bioterrorism preparedness in the border
area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with
Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer entitled the Border Health
Security Act of 2006. This bill addresses the tremendous health
problems confronting our nation's southwestern border.
The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico
Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land
100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international
boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and
New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a
population of 12 million residents.
The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 Native American
tribes, and 4 States in the United States and six States in Mexico.
Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The
situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In
the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the
Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted
funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission,
legislation I sponsored
[[Page S4699]]
with Senators McCain, Simon, and Hutchison, was created for the same
reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is
matched by $1 million from the Mexican Government for administrative
purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle
health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step
and provide resources to address the problems.
In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the United
States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been
designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people
live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are
unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard
housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very
high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the
Nation.
In a report earlier this year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties
Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it
would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to
access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied
health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis,
third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes.
The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health
problems with little or no resources.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005 for
the three-year average of 2002 to 2004, the states of Texas and New
Mexico rank first and second as the states with the highest uninsured
rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent,
respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had
uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively.
However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of
uninsured are higher still than that in the four states overall.
Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30
percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE,
the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4
percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than
twice the United States rate of 14.2 percent.
As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is
characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and
infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution
of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover,
the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access
to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus
keeps the border communities at risk.''
The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an
agenda through its Health Border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among
other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a
primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20
percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce
deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to
diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50
percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent;
reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce
the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of
prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.
However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that
are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation
I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer
would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border
Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to
improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care
services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities
to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for
the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary
care and preventative health, public health and public health
infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental
health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence
in the border region, medical and health services research, community
health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including
planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental
health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with
respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
CHIP.
We would certainly expect those grants would be used for the purpose
of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the Health
Border 2010 initiative.
In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for
funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure,
preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.-
Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the
establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate
information quickly to health providers about emerging health care
threats.
Mr. President, on October 15, 2001, just one month after the
September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to
the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together
an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The
Commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the
vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a
bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of
communities along the border and targets funding to those communities
specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness.
Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special
one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and
wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic
development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States's second
largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the
busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often
neglected.
As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without
increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and
private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the
border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in
these areas.''
I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original
cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation,
Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of
this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting
funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its
inception.
I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for working with us
on this important legislation and for their constant support over the
years for the work of the Commission.
I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress
and ask for unanimous consent for a summary and the text of the bill to
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2825
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Border Health Security Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Border area.--The term ``border area'' has the meaning
given the term ``United States-Mexico Border Area'' in
section 8 of the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission Act (22 U.S.C. 290n-6).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
SEC. 3. BORDER HEALTH GRANTS.
(a) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means a State, public institution of
higher education, local government, tribal government,
nonprofit health organization, or community health center
receiving assistance under section 330 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b), that is located in the border
area.
(b) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (f), the Secretary, acting through the United
States members of the United States-Mexico Border Health
[[Page S4700]]
Commission, shall award grants to eligible entities to
address priorities and recommendations to improve the health
of border area residents that are established by--
(1) the United States members of the United States-Mexico
Border Health Commission;
(2) the State border health offices; and
(3) the Secretary.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant
under subsection (b) shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under subsection (b) shall use the grant funds for--
(1) programs relating to--
(A) maternal and child health;
(B) primary care and preventative health;
(C) public health and public health infrastructure;
(D) health promotion;
(E) oral health;
(F) behavioral and mental health;
(G) substance abuse;
(H) health conditions that have a high prevalence in the
border area;
(I) medical and health services research;
(J) workforce training and development;
(K) community health workers or promotoras;
(L) health care infrastructure problems in the border area
(including planning and construction grants);
(M) health disparities in the border area;
(N) environmental health;
(O) health education; and
(P) outreach and enrollment services with respect to
Federal programs (including programs authorized under titles
XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 and
1397aa)); and
(2) other programs determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(e) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Amounts provided to an
eligible entity awarded a grant under subsection (b) shall be
used to supplement and not supplant other funds available to
the eligible entity to carry out the activities described in
subsection (d).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal year 2007 and each succeeding fiscal
year.
SEC. 4. BORDER BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS GRANTS.
(a) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means a State, local government, tribal
government, or public health entity.
(b) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (e), the Secretary shall award grants to eligible
entities for bioterrorism preparedness in the border area.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Uses of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under subsection (b) shall use the grant funds to, in
coordination with State and local bioterrorism programs--
(1) develop and implement bioterror preparedness plans and
readiness assessments and purchase items necessary for such
plans;
(2) coordinate bioterrorism and emergency preparedness
planning in the region;
(3) improve infrastructure, including syndrome surveillance
and laboratory capacity;
(4) create a health alert network, including risk
communication and information dissemination;
(5) educate and train clinicians, epidemiologists,
laboratories, and emergency personnel; and
(6) carry out such other activities identified by the
Secretary, the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission,
State and local public health offices, and border health
offices.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year.
SEC. 5. UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION ACT
AMENDMENTS.
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act (22
U.S.C. 290n et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be
necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
SEC. 6. COORDINATION OF HEALTH SERVICES AND SURVEILLANCE.
The Secretary may coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland
Security in establishing a health alert system that--
(1) alerts clinicians and public health officials of
emerging disease clusters and syndromes along the border
area; and
(2) is alerted to signs of health threats or bioterrorism
along the border area.
SEC. 7. BINATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH
INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine
for the conduct of a study concerning binational public
health infrastructure and health insurance efforts. In
conducting such study, the Institute shall solicit input from
border health experts and health insurance issuers.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which
the Secretary of Health and Human Services enters into the
contract under subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine
shall submit to the Secretary and the appropriate committees
of Congress a report concerning the study conducted under
such contract. Such report shall include the recommendations
of the Institute on ways to expand or improve binational
public health infrastructure and health insurance efforts.
SEC. 8. PROVISION OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADVICE TO CONGRESS.
Section 5 of the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission Act (22 U.S.C. 290n-3) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Providing Advice and Recommendations to Congress.--A
member of the Commission, or an individual who is on the
staff of the Commission, may at any time provide advice or
recommendations to Congress concerning issues that are
considered by the Commission. Such advice or recommendations
may be provided whether or not a request for such is made by
a member of Congress and regardless of whether the member or
individual is authorized to provide such advice or
recommendations by the Commission or any other Federal
official.''.
____
Fact Sheet
border health security act of 2006
Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced
the ``Border Health Security Act of 2006'' on May 17, 2006.
The legislation would improve the infrastructure, access, and
delivery of health care services to residents along the U.S.-
Mexico border.
The legislation would achieve these goals by--
Improving Border Health Services: Provides authorization
for funding to states, local governments, tribal governments,
institutions of higher education, nonprofit health
organizations, or community health centers along the U.S.-
Mexico border to improve infrastructure, access, and the
delivery of health care services.
These grants are flexible and would allow the community to
establish its own priorities with which to spend these funds
for the following range of purposes: maternal and child
health, primary care and preventative health, public health
and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral
health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health
conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region,
medical and health services research, community health
workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure (including
planning and construction grants), health disparities,
environmenta1 health, health education, and outreach and
enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Providing Border Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants: Provides
for $25 million in funding to states and local governments or
public health departments to improve the infrastructure,
preparedness, and education of health professionals along the
U.S.-Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This
includes the establishment of a health alert network to
identify and communicate information quickly to health
providers about emerging health care threats and coordination
of the system between the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission:
Provides for the reauthorization of the U.S.-Mexico Border
Health Commission at $10 million annually.
Coordination and Study: The legislation also affirms that
recommendations and advice on how to improve border health
from the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission shall be
communicated to the Congress. And finally, the legislation
provides for a study of binational health insurance options
and barriers to improve coverage for people residing along
the border.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2826. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
and expand relief from the alternative minimum tax and to repeal the
extension of the lower rates for capital gains and dividends for 2009
and 2010; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, President Bush is signing H.R. 4297,
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. I opposed
this legislation because it contains the wrong priorities for America--
leaving behind working families and substantially adding to the
deficit. This law chooses to extend the lower rates on capital gains
and dividends for 2009 and 2010, but only addresses the individual
alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 2006.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, those earning $200,000
or more will receive 84 percent of the benefit of the capital gains tax
cut and 63 percent of the benefit of the dividends tax cuts. According
to the Congressional Budget Office, 42.8 percent of taxpayers with
income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be impacted by the AMT if the
AMT is not addressed for
[[Page S4701]]
2007--a number that increases to 66 percent by 2010. The Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation of Act of 2005 extends a tax cut that
does not expire to the end of 2008 with a price tag of $50 billion, but
fails to protect the hard working families that will be impacted by the
AMT. These families were never intended to be impacted by the AMT, a
tax originally designed to prevent a small number of high income
taxpayers from avoiding taxation.
Today, I am introducing legislation that will address the AMT for
2007 and repeal the lower tax rates on capital dividends for 2009 and
2010. To calculate the AMT, individuals add back certain ``preference
items'' to their regular tax liability. These include personal
exemptions, the standard deduction, and the itemized deduction for
state and local taxes. From this amount, taxpayers subtract the AMT
exemption amount, commonly referred to as the ``patch'' which reverted
to lower levels at the end of 2005. H.R. 4297 increased and extended
the patch for 2006. The patch was increased in order to hold the same
number of taxpayers harmless from the AMT in 2006 as in 2005.
The problem with the AMT is that while the regular tax system is
indexed for inflation, the AMT exemption amounts and tax brackets
remain constant. This has the perverse consequence of punishing
taxpayers for the mere fact their incomes rose due to inflation.
A choice was made in 2001 to provide more tax cuts to those with
incomes of over one million dollars rather than addressing a looming
tax problem for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 did include a small adjustment to the AMT,
but it was not enough. We knew at the time that the number of taxpayers
subject to the AMT would continue to rise steadily. The combination of
lower tax cuts and a minor adjustment to the AMT would cause the AMT to
explode. We are now approaching this explosion.
My legislation extends and expands the AMT exemption amount for 2007
to prevent additional taxpayers from being impacted by the AMT. Without
increasing and extending the AMT exemption for 2007, an additional 3.2
million taxpayers will be impacted by the AMT in 2007. In addition, the
legislation will allow nonrefundable personal credits such as the
higher education tax credits and the dependent care credit against the
AMT for 2007. This legislation is offset by repealing the lower rates
on capital gains and dividends.
My colleagues in the majority argue that the extension of the capital
gains and dividends benefits is necessary to provide investor
certainty. But I believe that the certainty of working families worried
about paying the AMT should come first. New data from the Joint
Committee on Taxation requested by the Ways and Means Democratic
Members shows that in 2007, 62 percent of all taxable capital gain
income will be recognized by taxpayers liable for the minimum tax.
Simply put, taxpayers forced to carry the AMT burden will not benefit
from the lower capital gains and dividends rate.
The AMT is a looming problem that is impacting hard-working families
and for each year that we fail to address the AMT, it gets worse and
more expensive. We need to address the AMT for 2007. My legislation is
not a long-term cure to the AMT crisis, but it will provide certainty
for next year to hard working families that will be impacted by the AMT
just because of where they live and the number of children they have,
and it will address the AMT in a revenue neutral manner for 2007 as
well.
The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 addresses
the AMT for 2006, but at a price--providing a $42,000 tax cut to those
making more than a million dollars a year. The AMT for 2006 could have
been addressed in a bill that did not include the extension of
additional tax cuts and it could have been offset. Instead, addressing
the AMT for 2006 was included in a bill that will add far more than $70
billion to the deficit.
We all agree that the AMT should not be impacting families with
incomes below $100,000. I am concerned that we will not address the AMT
for 2007 in a timely and fiscally responsible manner. My bill does this
and would give Congress time to work together in a bipartisan manner to
find a fiscally responsible permanent solution to the AMT.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2826
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND INCREASE IN MINIMUM TAX RELIEF TO
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 55(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended by the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005, is amended--
(1) by striking ``$62,550 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2006'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``$66,100 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007'',
and
(2) by striking ``$42,500 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2006'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting
``$45,900 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS AGAINST
REGULAR AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, is amended--
(1) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2007'', and
(2) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or
2007''.
(b) Conforming Provisions.--
(1) Section 30B(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for 2007.--For purposes of any taxable
year beginning during 2007, the credit allowed under
subsection (a) (after the application of paragraph (1)) shall
not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and
this subpart (other than this section and section 30C).''.
(2) Section 30C(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for 2007.--For purposes of any taxable
year beginning during 2007, the credit allowed under
subsection (a) (after the application of paragraph (1)) shall
not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and
this subpart (other than this section).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXTENSION OF LOWER RATES FOR CAPITAL GAINS
AND DIVIDENDS.
The amendment made by section 102 of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such
amendment had never been enacted.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2827. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify
the investigative authorities of the privacy officer of the Department
of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Privacy
Officer With Enhanced Rights Act of 2006, POWER Act. I am pleased to be
joined by Senator Lieberman, the Ranking Member of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing this
important legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3041. The
POWER Act will strengthen the authority of the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS, Chief Privacy Officer, CPO, and will provide a much
needed check on government power.
Americans have an expectation that their personal privacy will not be
invaded and that their government will not misuse its powers. Democracy
is founded on the principle that the people are the ultimate source of
the Government's powers. Recent events validate the suspicions of our
Nation's Founders against concentrating power into the hands of the few
or in granting authority to those who are not accountable for how power
is utilized. We need to consider the effects of intelligence and
information gathering now that new government powers threaten to erode
our most cherished freedoms and technological advances appear to
outpace our ability to protect personal information.
In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, new law enforcement
strategies
[[Page S4702]]
were created and information sharing between government agencies
increased substantially. DHS was established to face new challenges and
address new threats. However, we were concerned that the unprecedented
size and reach of the new department could intrude on the values that
our nation cherishes most dearly. We wanted DHS to accomplish its vital
mission, but we had to make sure that it was not at the cost of our
liberty.
Times of crisis and unexpected trials do not excuse curtailment of
our citizens' fundamental liberties, which is why the DHS CPO was
created. The mission of the CPO is to ensure that the loss of the
freedoms that define this country would not be sacrificed for increased
vigilance against our adversaries. Although I voted against the
Homeland Security Act, I was pleased to work with my colleagues to
establish the CPO.
The DHS CPO has three primary responsibilities: (1) assuring that new
technologies and information gathering methods do not erode personal
privacy; (2) evaluating the privacy impact of new government programs;
and (3) investigating privacy complaints.
However, the CPO's powers have proved to be inadequate. The major
problem is that the CPO lacks subpoena power and, therefore, cannot
fully investigate privacy violations. Instead, the CPO must rely on
voluntary submissions of information in order to conduct investigations
which significantly weakens the office. We all remember the news
accounts about how the CPO's requests for documents in her
investigation of the Transportation Security Administration's, TSA,
transfer of passenger data from a major commercial air carrier to the
Defense Department were rebuffed repeatedly. Our bill will go a long
way to ensure that such situations will not happen again.
We are also concerned by the fact that the CPO cannot communicate
directly with Congress, but instead, must report through DHS senior
leadership. Similar to the Inspector General, the CPO can often be put
at odds with those subject to investigation, so the authority to report
directly to Congress and deliver unaltered findings is critical.
The POWER Act will address these shortcomings by providing the CPO
with the power to: access all records deemed necessary to do the job;
undertake any privacy investigation that is appropriate for the office;
subpoena documents from the private sector when necessary to fulfill
the CPO's statutory mandate; and obtain sworn testimony.
To provide independence for this position, the CPO will submit
reports directly to Congress regarding the performance of his or her
duties, without any prior comment or amendment by the DHS Secretary. In
addition, our bill would protect the CPO from retaliation by mandating
that the CPO cannot be removed from office without notifying the
President and Congress of the reasons for removal.
With concerns over the development of new data mining activities at
the Department and the potential use of commercial data by TSA, it is
essential now more than ever that the DHS CPO have the tools and
authority to protect the personal information of all Americans. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill and a letter of support from the American Civil
Liberties Union be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2827
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Privacy Officer With
Enhanced Rights Act of 2006'' or the ``POWER Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITIES OF THE PRIVACY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
142) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Appointment and Responsibilities.--
'' before ``The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Authority To Investigate.--
``(1) In general.--The senior official appointed under
subsection (a) may--
``(A) have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews,
documents, papers, recommendations, and other materials
available to the Department that relate to programs and
operations with respect to the responsibilities of the senior
official under this section;
``(B) make such investigations and reports relating to the
administration of the programs and operations of the
Department that are necessary or desirable as determined by
that senior official;
``(C) require by subpoena the production, by any person
other than a Federal agency, of all information, documents,
reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data
and documentary evidence necessary to performance of the
responsibilities of the senior official under this section;
and
``(D) administer to or take from any person an oath,
affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary to performance
of the responsibilities of the senior official under this
section.
``(2) Enforcement of subpoenas.--Any subpoena issued under
paragraph (1)(C) shall, in the case of contumacy or refusal
to obey, be enforceable by order of any appropriate United
States district court.
``(3) Effect of oaths.--Any oath, affirmation, or affidavit
administered or taken under paragraph (1)(D) by or before an
employee of the Privacy Office designated for that purpose by
the senior official appointed under subsection (a) shall have
the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or
before an officer having a seal of office.
``(c) Supervision.--
``(1) In general.--The senior official appointed under
subsection (a) shall report to, and be under the general
supervision of the Secretary.
``(2) Notification to congress.--If the Secretary removes
the senior official appointed under subsection (a) or
transfers that senior official to another position or
location within the Department, the Secretary shall--
``(A) promptly submit a written notification of the removal
or transfer to Houses of Congress; and
``(B) include in any such notification the reasons for the
removal or transfer.
``(d) Reports by Senior Official to Congress.--The senior
official appointed under subsection (a) shall submit reports
directly to the Congress regarding performance of the
responsibilities of the senior official under this section,
without any prior comment or amendment by the Secretary,
Deputy Secretary, or any other officer or employee of the
Department or the Office of Management and Budget.''.
____
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2006.
Dear Senators Akaka and Lieberman: The American Civil
Liberties Union commends you for introducing the Privacy
Officer With Enhanced Rights Act (POWER Act). This
legislation and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 3041,
are an important step towards ensuring that the Department of
Homeland Security's Privacy Officer has all the tools needed
to carry out the mission Congress envisioned for the office
when it created the Department of Homeland Security
(``DHS''). The POWER Act will allow the Privacy Officer to
better protect the privacy rights of all Americans by
providing important oversight of DHS, which handles extensive
amounts of sensitive personal information on Americans.
The original Congressional intention of the DHS Privacy
Officer's authority has not yet been achieved. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 mandated the creation of a senior
official to assume responsibility for DHS privacy policies.
Specifically, this official is to assure that new
technologies do not erode the personal privacy of Americans,
evaluate new proposals concerning the use of personal data,
assure that DHS is in full compliance with the Privacy Act of
1974, and to report to Congress on an annual basis any
activities that impact privacy including ``complaints of
privacy violations, implementation of the Privacy Act of
1974, internal controls, and other matters.''
Congress, however, failed to endow this position with the
necessary investigative powers necessary to fulfill these
duties. Currently, the Privacy Officer must rely on voluntary
submission of information to conduct investigations. For
example, when the Privacy Officer attempted to investigate
the disclosure of JetBlue passenger information by the
Transportation Security Administration to the Department of
Defense, its requests for information were repeatedly
rebuffed preventing a comprehensive investigation. The
shortcomings of this process prevent the Privacy Officer from
being an effective advocate for the privacy rights of
Americans.
The POWER Act addresses these problems by providing the
Privacy Officer with the tools and independence necessary to
conduct investigations and thereby fulfill the duties charged
to the position by Congress in 2002. This legislation
empowers the Privacy Officer to access all records deemed
necessary, undertake any investigation deemed appropriate,
subpoena documents, and obtain sworn testimony. This
legislation also directs the Privacy Officer to submit
reports directly to Congress without prior amendment by other
Department officials, helping to protect the position from
internal censorship.
The POWER Act is an important piece of legislation to help
ensure that the privacy rights of Americans are not being
violated by their own government by providing crucial
internal oversight. We commend you for introducing this
important piece of legislation, the Privacy Officer With
Enhanced
[[Page S4703]]
Rights Act, and pledge to work with you to ensure its
passage.
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson,
Director.
Timothy Sparapani,
Legislative Counsel.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kerry, Ms.
Landrieu, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 2828. A bill to provide for educational opportunities for all
students in State public school systems, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed,
Clinton, Sarbanes, Akaka, Lautenberg, Kerry, Landrieu and Menendez to
introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that every
child in America has an equal opportunity to receive a good education.
The Student Bill of Rights would achieve this goal by providing
America's children with the key components of a solid education. These
components include highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula,
small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date
technology.
Currently, Federal law requires that schools within the same district
provide comparable educational services. The Student Bill of Rights
would extend that basic guarantee of equal opportunity to the State
level by requiring comparability of resources across school districts
within a State.
Over 50 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education struck down
segregation in law. Over 50 years later, we know that just because
there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist.
Today, our education system remains largely separate and unequal.
All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality
teacher, has access to the best courses and instructional materials,
goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from
educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality
education still depends on where the child's family can afford to live.
In fact, the United States ranks at the bottom among developed
countries in the disparity in the quality of schools available to
wealthy and low-income children. This gap is simply unacceptable, and
it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's
ability to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating
citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the
global economy.
Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic
achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role
models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we
also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with
the opportunity to receive a solid education.
This bill is entirely consistent with America's historical commitment
to equal opportunity. That is why 42 Senators voted for similar
legislation in the 107th Congress. On the other hand, it would be
inconsistent with America's principles to tolerate an educational
system that provides meaningful educational opportunities for just a
select few.
The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or
her ZIP code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and
every child gets a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity
for a successful future.
Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting
the Student Bill of Rights and I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2828
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Student Bill of Rights''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings and purposes.
TITLE I--ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
Sec. 101. State public school systems.
Sec. 102. Fundamentals of educational opportunity.
TITLE II--STATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 201. State accountability plan.
Sec. 202. Consequences of failure to meet requirements.
TITLE III--REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC
Sec. 301. Annual report on State public school systems.
TITLE IV--REMEDY
Sec. 401. Civil action for enforcement.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Rulemaking.
Sec. 503. Construction.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) A high-quality, highly competitive education for all
students is imperative for the economic growth and
productivity of the United States, for its effective national
defense, and to achieve the historical aspiration to be one
Nation of equal citizens. It is therefore necessary and
proper to overcome the nationwide phenomenon of State public
school systems that do not meet the requirements of section
101(a), in which high-quality public schools typically serve
high-income communities and poor-quality schools typically
serve low-income, urban, rural, and minority communities.
(2) In 2005, the National Academies found in their report
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future'' that the inadequate
preparation of kindergarten through grade 12 students in
science and mathematics, including the significant lack of
teachers qualified to teach these subjects, threatens the
economic prosperity of the United States. When students do
not receive quality mathematics and science preparation in
kindergarten through grade 12, they are not prepared to take
advanced courses in these subjects at the postsecondary
level, leaving the United States with a critical shortage of
scientists and engineers--a shortfall being filled by
professionals from other countries.
(3) There exists in the States a significant educational
opportunity gap for low-income, urban, rural, and minority
students characterized by the following:
(A) Continuing disparities within States in students'
access to the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102.
(B) Highly differential educational expenditures (adjusted
for cost and need) among school districts within States.
(C) Radically differential educational achievement among
students in school districts within States as measured by the
following:
(i) Achievement in mathematics, reading or language arts,
and science on State academic assessments required under
section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) and on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress.
(ii) Advanced placement courses taken.
(iii) SAT and ACT test scores.
(iv) Dropout rates and graduation rates.
(v) College-going and college-completion rates.
(4) As a consequence of this educational opportunity gap,
the quality of a child's education depends largely upon where
the child's family can afford to live, and the detriments of
lower quality education are imposed particularly on--
(A) children from low-income families;
(B) children living in urban and rural areas; and
(C) minority children.
(5) Since 1785, Congress, exercising the power to admit new
States under section 3 of article IV of the Constitution (and
previously, the Congress of the Confederation of States under
the Articles of Confederation), has imposed upon every State,
as a fundamental condition of the State's admission, that the
State provide for the establishment and maintenance of
systems of public schools open to all children in such State.
(6) Over the years since the landmark ruling in Brown v.
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954), when a
unanimous Supreme Court held that ``the opportunity of an
education . . . , where the State has undertaken to provide
it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal
terms'', courts in 44 States have heard challenges to the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of State public
school systems that are separate and not educationally
adequate.
(7) In 1970, the Presidential Commission on School Finance
found that significant disparities in the distribution of
educational resources existed among school districts within
States because the States relied too significantly on local
district financing for educational revenues, and that reforms
in systems of school financing would increase the Nation's
ability to serve the educational needs of all children.
(8) In 1999, the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences published a report entitled ``Making
Money Matter, Financing America's Schools'', which found that
the concept of funding adequacy, which moves beyond the more
traditional concepts of finance equity to focus attention
[[Page S4704]]
on the sufficiency of funding for desired educational
outcomes, is an important step in developing a fair and
productive educational system.
(9) In 2001, the Executive Order establishing the
President's Commission on Educational Resource Equity
declared, ``A quality education is essential to the success
of every child in the 21st century and to the continued
strength and prosperity of our Nation. . . . [L]ong-standing
gaps in access to educational resources exist, including
disparities based on race and ethnicity.'' (Exec. Order No.
13190, 66 Fed. Reg. 5424 (2001)).
(10) According to the Secretary of Education, as stated in
a letter (with enclosures) from the Secretary to States dated
January 19, 2001--
(A) racial and ethnic minorities continue to suffer from
lack of access to educational resources, including
``experienced and qualified teachers, adequate facilities,
and instructional programs and support, including technology,
as well as . . . the funding necessary to secure these
resources''; and
(B) these inadequacies are ``particularly acute in high-
poverty schools, including urban schools, where many students
of color are isolated and where the effect of the resource
gaps may be cumulative. In other words, students who need the
most may often receive the least, and these students often
are students of color.''.
(11) In the amendments made by the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001, Congress--
(A)(i) required each State to establish standards and
assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and
science; and
(ii) required schools to ensure that all students are
proficient in mathematics, reading or language arts, and
science not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001-
2002 school year, and held schools accountable for the
students' progress; and
(B) required each State to describe how the State will help
local educational agencies and schools to develop the
capacity to improve student academic achievement.
(12) The standards and accountability movement will succeed
only if, in addition to standards and accountability, all
schools have access to the educational resources necessary to
enable students to achieve.
(13) Raising standards without ensuring access to
educational resources may in fact exacerbate achievement gaps
and set children up for failure.
(14) According to the World Economic Forum's Global
Competitiveness Report 2001-2002, the United States ranks
last among developed countries in the difference in the
quality of schools available to rich and poor children.
(15) The persistence of pervasive inadequacies in the
quality of education provided by State public school systems
effectively deprives millions of children throughout the
United States of the opportunity for an education adequate to
enable the children to--
(A) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for
responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the
ability to participate fully in the political process through
informed electoral choice;
(B) meet challenging student academic achievement
standards; and
(C) be able to compete and succeed in a global economy.
(16) Each State government has ultimate authority to
determine every important aspect and priority of the public
school system that provides elementary and secondary
education to children in the State, including whether
students throughout the State have access to the fundamentals
of educational opportunity described in section 102.
(17) Because a well educated populace is critical to the
Nation's political and economic well-being and national
security, the Federal Government has a substantial interest
in ensuring that States provide a high-quality education by
ensuring that all students have access to the fundamentals of
educational opportunity described in section 102 to enable
the students to succeed academically and in life.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To further the goals of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001), by holding States accountable for providing all
students with access to the fundamentals of educational
opportunity described in section 102.
(2) To ensure that all students in public elementary
schools and secondary schools receive educational
opportunities that enable such students to--
(A) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for
responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the
ability to participate fully in the political process through
informed electoral choice;
(B) meet challenging student academic achievement
standards; and
(C) be able to compete and succeed in a global economy.
(3) To end the pervasive pattern of States maintaining
public school systems that do not meet the requirements of
section 101(a).
TITLE I--ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
SEC. 101. STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
(a) Requirements.--Each State receiving Federal financial
assistance for elementary or secondary education shall ensure
that the State's public school system provides all students
within the State with an education that enables the students
to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for responsible
citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the ability to
participate fully in the political process through informed
electoral choice, to meet challenging student academic
achievement standards, and to be able to compete and succeed
in a global economy, through--
(1) the provision of fundamentals of educational
opportunity described in section 102, at adequate or ideal
levels as defined by the State under section 201(a)(1)(A) to
students at each public elementary school and secondary
school in the State;
(2) the provision of educational services in school
districts that receive funds under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.) that are, taken as a whole, at least comparable
to educational services provided in school districts not
receiving such funds; and
(3) compliance with any final Federal or State court order
in any matter concerning the adequacy or equitableness of the
State's public school system.
(b) Determinations Concerning State Public School
Systems.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall determine whether each State maintains a
public school system that meets the requirements of
subsection (a). The Secretary may make a determination that a
State public school system does not meet such requirements
only after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
(c) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish and make
available to the general public (including by means of the
Internet) the determinations made under subsection (b).
SEC. 102. FUNDAMENTALS OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.
The fundamentals of educational opportunity are the
following:
(1) Highly qualified teachers, principals, and academic
support personnel.--
(A) Highly qualified teachers.--Instruction from highly
qualified teachers in core academic subjects.
(B) Highly qualified principals.--Leadership, management,
and guidance from principals who meet State certification
standards.
(C) Highly qualified academic support personnel.--Necessary
additional academic support in reading or language arts,
mathematics, and other core academic subjects from personnel
who meet applicable State standards.
(2) Rigorous academic standards, curricula, and methods of
instruction.--Rigorous academic standards, curricula, and
methods of instruction, as measured by the extent to which
each school district succeeds in providing high-quality
academic standards, curricula, and methods of instruction to
students in each public elementary school and secondary
school within the district.
(3) Small class sizes.--Small class sizes, as measured by--
(A) the average class size and the range of class sizes;
and
(B) the percentage of elementary school classes with 17 or
fewer students.
(4) Textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies.--
Textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies, as measured
by--
(A) the average age and quality of textbooks, instructional
materials, and supplies used in core academic subjects; and
(B) the percentage of students who begin the school year
with school-issued textbooks, instructional materials, and
supplies.
(5) Library resources.--Library resources, as measured by--
(A) the size and qualifications of the library's staff,
including whether the library is staffed by a full-time
librarian certified under applicable State standards;
(B) the size (relative to the number of students) and
quality (including age) of the library's collection of books
and periodicals; and
(C) the library's hours of operation.
(6) School facilities and computer technology.--
(A) Quality school facilities.--Quality school facilities,
as measured by--
(i) the physical condition of school buildings and major
school building features;
(ii) environmental conditions in school buildings; and
(iii) the quality of instructional space.
(B) Computer technology.--Computer technology, as measured
by--
(i) the ratio of computers to students;
(ii) the quality of computers and software available to
students;
(iii) Internet access;
(iv) the quality of system maintenance and technical
assistance for the computers; and
(v) the number of computer laboratory courses taught by
qualified computer instructors.
(7) Quality guidance counseling.--Qualified guidance
counselors, as measured by the ratio of students to qualified
guidance counselors who have been certified under an
applicable State or national program.
TITLE II--STATE ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 201. STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.
(a) General Plan.--
(1) Contents.--Each State receiving Federal financial
assistance for elementary and secondary education shall
annually submit to the Secretary a plan, developed by the
State educational agency, in consultation with local
educational agencies, teachers, principals, pupil services
personnel, administrators, other staff, and parents, that
contains the following:
[[Page S4705]]
(A) A description of 2 levels of high access (adequate and
ideal) to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102 that measure how well the State,
through school districts, public elementary schools, and
public secondary schools, is achieving the purposes of this
Act by providing children with the resources they need to
succeed academically and in life.
(B) A description of a third level of access (basic) to
each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity described
in section 102 that measures how well the State, through
school districts, public elementary schools, and public
secondary schools, is achieving the purposes of this Act by
providing children with the resources they need to succeed
academically and in life.
(C) A description of the level of access of each school
district, public elementary school, and public secondary
school in the State to each of the fundamentals of
educational opportunity described in section 102, including
identification of any such schools that lack high access (as
described in subparagraph (A)) to any of the fundamentals.
(D) An estimate of the additional cost, if any, of ensuring
that the system meets the requirements of section 101(a).
(E) Information stating the percentage of students in each
school district, public elementary school, and public
secondary school in the State that are proficient in
mathematics, reading or language arts, and science, as
measured through assessments administered as described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(v)).
(F) Information stating whether each school district,
public elementary school, and public secondary school in the
State is making adequate yearly progress, as defined under
section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)).
(G)(i) For each school district, public elementary school,
and public secondary school in the State, information
stating--
(I) the number and percentage of children counted under
section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
(II) the number and percentage of students described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(xiii)).
(ii) For each such school district, information stating
whether the district is an urban, mixed, or rural district
(as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics).
(2) Levels of access.--For purposes of the plan submitted
under paragraph (1)--
(A) in defining basic, adequate, and ideal levels of access
to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity, each
State shall consider, in addition to the factors described in
section 102, the access available to students in the highest-
achieving decile of public elementary schools and secondary
schools, the unique needs of low-income, urban and rural, and
minority students, and other educationally appropriate
factors; and
(B) the levels of access described in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1) shall be aligned with the challenging
academic content standards, challenging student academic
achievement standards, and high-quality academic assessments
required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
(3) Information.--The State shall annually disseminate to
parents, in an understandable and uniform format, the
descriptions, estimate, and information described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Accountability and Remediation.--
(1) Accountability.--If the Secretary determines under
section 101(b) that a State maintains a public school system
that fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(1), the
plan submitted under subsection (a)(1) shall--
(A) demonstrate that the State has developed and is
implementing a single, statewide State accountability system
that will be effective in ensuring that the State makes
adequate yearly progress under this Act (as defined by the
State in a manner that annually reduces the number of public
elementary schools and secondary schools in the State without
high access (as described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) to each of
fundamentals of educational opportunity described in section
102);
(B) demonstrate, based on the levels of access described in
paragraph (1) what constitutes adequate yearly progress of
the State under this Act toward providing all students with
high access to the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102; and
(C) ensure--
(i) the establishment of a timeline for that adequate
yearly progress that includes interim yearly goals for the
reduction of the number of public elementary schools and
secondary schools in the State without high access to each of
the fundamentals of educational opportunity described in
section 102; and
(ii) that not later than 12 years after the end of the
2005-2006 school year, each public elementary school in the
State shall have access to each of the fundamentals of
educational opportunity described in section 102.
(2) Remediation.--If the Secretary determines under section
101(b) that a State maintains a public school system that
fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(2), not
later than 1 year after the Secretary makes the
determination, the State shall include in the plan submitted
under subsection (a)(1) a strategy to remediate the
conditions that caused the Secretary to make such
determination, not later than the end of the second school
year beginning after submission of the plan.
(c) Amendments.--A State may amend the plan submitted under
subsection (a)(1) to improve the plan or to take into account
significantly changed circumstances.
(d) Disapproval.--The Secretary may disapprove the plan
submitted under subsection (a)(1) (or an amendment to such a
plan) if the Secretary determines, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, that the plan (or amendment) is
inadequate to meet the requirements described in subsections
(a) and (b).
(e) Waiver.--
(1) In general.--A State may request, and the Secretary may
grant, a waiver of the requirements of subsections (a) and
(b) for 1 year for exceptional circumstances, such as a
precipitous decrease in State revenues, or another
circumstance that the Secretary determines to be exceptional,
that prevents a State from complying with the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Contents of waiver request.--A State that requests a
waiver under paragraph (1) shall include in the request--
(A) a description of the exceptional circumstance that
prevents the State from complying with the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b); and
(B) a plan that details the manner in which the State will
comply with such requirements by the end of the waiver
period.
SEC. 202. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Interim Yearly Goals.--
(1) In general.--For a fiscal year and a State described in
section 201(b)(1), the Secretary shall withhold from the
State 2.75 percent of funds otherwise available to the State
for the administration of Federal elementary and secondary
education programs, for each covered goal that the Secretary
determines the State is not meeting during that year.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
goal'', used with respect to a fiscal year, means an interim
yearly goal described in section 201(b)(1)(C)(i) that is
applicable to that year or a prior fiscal year.
(b) Consequences of Nonremediation.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if the Secretary determines that a
State required to include a strategy under section 201(b)(2)
continues to maintain a public school system that does not
meet the requirements of section 101(a)(2) at the end of the
second school year described in section 201(b)(2), the
Secretary shall withhold from the State not more than 33\1/3\
percent of funds otherwise available to the State for the
administration of programs authorized under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.)
until the Secretary determines that the State maintains a
public school system that meets the requirements of section
101(a)(2).
(c) Consequences of Noncompliance With Court Orders.--If
the Secretary determines under section 101(b) that a State
maintains a public school system that fails to meet the
requirements of section 101(a)(3), the Secretary shall
withhold from the State not more than 33\1/3\ percent of
funds otherwise available to the State for the administration
of programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
(d) Disposition of Funds Withheld.--
(1) Determination.--Not later than 1 year after the
Secretary withholds funds from a State under this section,
the Secretary shall determine whether the State has corrected
the condition that led to the withholding.
(2) Disposition.--
(A) Correction.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1), that the State has corrected the condition
that led to the withholding, the Secretary shall make the
withheld funds available to the State to use for the original
purpose of the funds during 1 or more fiscal years specified
by the Secretary.
(B) Noncorrection.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1), that the State has not corrected the condition
that led to the withholding, the Secretary shall allocate the
withheld funds to public school districts, public elementary
schools, or public secondary schools in the State that are
most adversely affected by the condition that led to the
withholding, to enable the districts or schools to correct
the condition during 1 or more fiscal years specified by the
Secretary.
(3) Availability.--Amounts made available or allocated
under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) shall remain
available during the fiscal years specified by the Secretary
under that subparagraph.
TITLE III--REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC
SEC. 301. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
(a) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than October 1 of
each year, beginning the year after completion of the first
full school year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes a
full and complete analysis of the public school system of
each State.
(b) Contents of Report.--The analysis conducted under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
[[Page S4706]]
(1) Public school system information.--The following
information related to the public school system of each
State:
(A) The number of school districts, public elementary
schools, public secondary schools, and students in the
system.
(B)(i) For each such school district and school--
(I) information stating the number and percentage of
children counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
(II) the number and percentage of students, disaggregated
by groups described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(3)(C)(xiii)).
(ii) For each such district, information stating whether
the district is an urban, mixed, or rural district (as
defined by the National Center for Education Statistics).
(C) The average per-pupil expenditure (both in actual
dollars and adjusted for cost and need) for the State and for
each school district in the State.
(D) Each school district's decile ranking as measured by
achievement in mathematics, reading or language arts, and
science on State academic assessments required under section
1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) and on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
(E) For each school district, public elementary school, and
public secondary school--
(i) the level of access (as described in section 201(a)(1))
to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity
described in section 102;
(ii) the percentage of students that are proficient in
mathematics, reading or language arts, and science, as
measured through assessments administered as described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(v)); and
(iii) whether the school district or school is making
adequate yearly progress--
(I) as defined under section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2));
and
(II) as defined by the State under section 201(b)(1)(A).
(F) For each State, the number of public elementary schools
and secondary schools that lack, and names of each such
school that lacks, high access (as described in section
201(a)(1)(A)) to any of the fundamentals of educational
opportunity described in section 102.
(G) For the year covered by the report, a summary of any
changes in the data required in subparagraphs (A) through (F)
for each of the preceding 3 years (which may be based on such
data as are available, for the first 3 reports submitted
under subsection (a)).
(H) Such other information as the Secretary considers
useful and appropriate.
(2) State actions.--For each State that the Secretary
determines under section 101(b) maintains a public school
system that fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a),
a detailed description and evaluation of the success of any
actions taken by the State, and measures proposed to be taken
by the State, to meet the requirements.
(3) State plans.--A copy of each State's most recent plan
submitted under section 201(a)(1).
(4) Relationship between compliance and achievement.--An
analysis of the relationship between meeting the requirements
of section 101(a) and improving student academic achievement,
as measured on State academic assessments required under
section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).
(c) Scope of Report.--The report required under subsection
(a) shall cover the school year ending in the calendar year
in which the report is required to be submitted.
(d) Submission of Data to Secretary.--Each State receiving
Federal financial assistance for elementary and secondary
education shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require, such
data as the Secretary determines to be necessary to make a
determination under section 101(b) and to submit the report
under this section. Such data shall include the information
used to measure the State's success in providing the
fundamentals of educational opportunity described in section
102.
(e) Failure To Submit Data.--If a State fails to submit the
data that the Secretary determines to be necessary to make a
determination under section 101(b) regarding whether the
State maintains a public school system that meets the
requirements of section 101(a)--
(1) such State's public school system shall be deemed not
to have met the applicable requirements until the State
submits such data and the Secretary is able to make such
determination under section 101(b); and
(2) the Secretary shall provide, to the extent practicable,
the analysis required in subsection (a) for the State based
on the best data available to the Secretary.
(f) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish and make
available to the general public (including by means of the
Internet) the report required under subsection (a).
TITLE IV--REMEDY
SEC. 401. CIVIL ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT.
A student or parent of a student aggrieved by a violation
of this Act may bring a civil action against the appropriate
official in an appropriate Federal district court seeking
declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce the requirements
of this Act, together with reasonable attorney's fees and the
costs of the action.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Referenced terms.--The terms ``elementary school'',
``secondary school'', ``local educational agency'', ``highly
qualified'', ``core academic subjects'', ``parent'', and
``average per-pupil expenditure'' have the meanings given
those terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) Federal elementary and secondary education programs.--
The term ``Federal elementary and secondary education
programs'' means programs providing Federal financial
assistance for elementary or secondary education, other than
programs under the following provisions of law:
(A) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
(B) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
(C) The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
(D) The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et
seq.).
(3) Public school system.--The term ``public school
system'' means a State's system of public elementary and
secondary education.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
SEC. 502. RULEMAKING.
The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out this
Act.
SEC. 503. CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a
jurisdiction to increase its property tax or other tax rates
or to redistribute revenues from such taxes.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Carper, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Johnson,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Levin,
and Mr. Biden):
S. 2829. A bill to reduce the addiction of the United States to oil,
to ensure near-term energy affordability and empower American families,
to accelerate clean fuels and electricity, to provide government
leadership for clean and secure energy, to secure a reliable,
affordable, and sustainable energy future, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
seeks to put America squarely on the path toward energy security for
the 21st Century. Today, I am joined by a number of my colleagues in
introducing the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy, or
Clean EDGE, Act.
Mr. President, this legislation is a sweeping proposal that
incorporates the ideas of many of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle. It is our attempt to move America forward, on a pressing issue
that--as we've said many times before--poses one of the greatest
national security, economic and environmental challenges faced by our
generation. I am talking about the issue of energy independence, and
what it will take to put America on the right track.
The legislation we are presenting today is the result of a good deal
of work within our caucus. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee,
I speak from some experience when I say that developing a cohesive,
national approach to energy policy is quite difficult. That is because,
in so many instances, there are important issues of regional diversity
that can divide us.
Instead of immediately succumbing to those divisions, what we did
when we began to work on this legislation was to start with a goal.
Like the Manhattan Project that established America as the world's
first nuclear power, and the Apollo Project that ensured America won
the race to the moon, we recognized that initiatives of this magnitude
must begin with a goal. When America sets a goal, America will achieve
it. It takes leadership and resolve, and it takes the shared commitment
of individual citizens to make it a truly national effort. But make no
mistake: the people of the United States will rise to the challenge.
Today, we can no longer ignore the enormous cost of America's
dependence on foreign oil. It has become a crisis for consumers; it
poses an imminent
[[Page S4707]]
risk to our national security; and it jeopardizes our long-term
economic competitiveness. That is why we believe that America must
strive for an aggressive goal: to reduce our national petroleum
consumption equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports by 2020,
or about 6 million barrels of oil a day.
Next, we set out to define agreed-upon principles about the best ways
we could jumpstart our Nation's effort to achieve this goal. I am proud
to say that we were able to achieve a good deal of consensus on these
principles. Today, we sent the President a letter outlining them, which
gained the signatures of 42 of my colleagues. These principles boil
down to this:
The United States must launch an aggressive effort designed to ensure
that an increasing number of new vehicles sold in America can run on
alternative fuels--starting with 25 percent in 2010--and must launch a
bold initiative to invest in the infrastructure needed to promote real
competition at the gas pump.
The United States must ensure that consumers are protected from
gasoline price-gouging and energy market manipulation.
The United States must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and take
steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions by diversifying electricity
sources to include more renewable resources.
The United States Governmment--our Nation's single largest energy
consumer--must help lead the transition by adopting the best available
fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies to reduce its
petroleum consumption by 20 percent over the next 5 years, and by 40
percent by 2020.
The United States must level the playing field for new renewable and
energy efficiency technologies by providing incentives for consumers
and manufacturers to develop and deploy the next generation of fuel
efficient vehicles, and by ensuring that major oil companies pay their
fair share in taxes and royalties owed to the American public.
These are the principles that guided us as we crafted the Clean EDGE
Act. This legislation is a starting point, as we try to advance the
dialogue about what it will take to put America on the path toward
energy independence.
There are provisions contained in this bill that we know can garner
broad bipartisan support. There are others that may not have been
possible to enact, before America started waking up to the costs of our
energy independence. And there are other ideas that require broader
debate and close scrutiny within the Senate Committees of jurisdiction.
The Senate should work its will.
But once again, that is the point of this legislation: to start the
process; to jump-start the debate, and outline a vision of where this
country needs to go to secure our future.
As we have come together on this side of the aisle in recognition of
the need to address the pressing issue of energy security, I know I
speak for a number of my colleagues when I say I believe it is possible
to come together in a bipartisan manner to pass energy legislation this
summer. It is possible, if the Senate decides to put politics and
partisan rancor aside. We can roll up our sleeves and get to work on
crafting a real energy security plan that brings out the best in
America. That process would also bring out the best in the Senate.
So I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and look forward
to working with my colleagues across the aisle in further developing an
energy independence plan for America.
____________________