Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 130 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 130 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11058-S11071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 4059. A bill to prohibit departments, agencies, and other
instrumentalities of the Federal Government from providing assistance
to an entity for the development of course material or the provision of
instruction on human development and sexuality, if such material or
instruction will include medically inaccurate information, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my
bill, the ``Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act.''
My bill would require that federally-funded sex education/abstinence
only programs contain medically accurate and factual information as
part of any course instruction.
During the past few years, there has been an increase in the number
of federally funded programs using curricula that provide medically
inaccurate or misleading information.
Some of these medical inaccuracies include teaching young people that
HIV can be transmitted by sweat and tears, citing failure rates of
condoms as high as 69 percent, as well as giving inaccurate symptoms
and outcomes of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, some
federally funded programs

[[Page S11059]]

provided erroneous information about basic scientific facts, for
example, stating that human cells have 24 chromosomes from each parent
when in fact the number is 23.
Inaccurate information regarding contraception and STD/HIV prevention
can make sex education both dangerous and counterproductive.
Responsible sex education, by contrast, is an important component of a
strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of
abortions, and mitigate the incidence of STD's.
Instruction regarding sexual health and reproduction that includes
inaccurate or biased information is not only irresponsible, but it is
also dangerous, and it puts our young people at risk for unintended
pregnancy and disease.
I urge my colleagues to support medically accurate sex-education--
programs that helps young people to develop the proper understanding of
their sexuality, so they can make responsible decisions throughout
their lives.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 4059

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 ``Guarantee of Medical
Accuracy in Sex Education Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:
(1) A 2006 Government Accountability Office report entitled
``Abstinence Education: Efforts to Assess the Accuracy and
Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs'' finds that the
Department of Health and Human Services does not review the
content of the major federally funded abstinence-only
education programs for accuracy.
(2) All federally funded programs aimed at helping young
people make healthy decisions regarding their relationships
and sexual health should include medically accurate
information.
(3) A 2004 report from the Minority Office of the Committee
on Government Reform of the House of Representatives found
serious medical inaccuracies associated with a large majority
of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
(4) The Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM) found in a
2006 position paper that abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs ``provide incomplete and/or misleading information''
and states that ``efforts to promote abstinence should be
based on sound science''.
(5) The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
have also expressed ``the importance of ensuring that all
federally funded sexuality education programs include
information that is medically accurate and complete''.
(6) The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that
``children and adolescents need accurate and comprehensive
education about sexuality to practice healthy sexual behavior
as adults''.
(7) The American Public Health Association (APHA)
``recognize[s] that sexuality is a normal, healthy aspect of
human development . . . and that individuals of all ages
require complete and accurate information about all aspects
of sexuality''. APHA ``endorses the right of children and
youth to receive comprehensive sexuality education that
includes facts, information, and data and that demonstrates
an appreciation of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity''.
(8) The American Medical Association ``urges schools to
implement comprehensive, developmentally appropriate
sexuality education programs that are based on rigorous, peer
reviewed science''.
(9) Over 1 billion dollars in citizen taxpayer money has
been spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the
past quarter century without significant monitoring of the
content of these programs in order to guarantee they contain
medically accurate information and exclude inaccurate data.

SEC. 3. MEDICALLY INACCURATE SEX EDUCATION.

(a) Requirements.--A department, agency, or other
instrumentality of the Federal Government shall not provide
funds or other assistance to an entity for the development of
course material or the provision of instruction on human
development and sexuality, including any sex education,
family life education, abstinence education, comprehensive
health education, or character education, if such material or
instruction will include medically inaccurate information.
Before providing such funds or other assistance, the
department, agency, or instrumentality shall require a
sufficient assurance that such material or instruction will
not include medically inaccurate information.
(b) Definitions.--In this Act, the term ``medically
inaccurate information'' means information related to
medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, or
statistical statements that is unsupported or contradicted by
peer-reviewed research by leading medical, psychological,
psychiatric, and public health organizations and agencies.
______

By Mr. DODD:
S. 4060. A bill to amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to
improve and enhance due process and appellate procedures, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise to introduce the Effective Terrorists
Prosecution Act of 2006. This legislation would make critically
important changes to the measure that Congress narrowly approved on
September 29, the Mi1itary Commissions Act of 2006. Let me be clear
from the outset of my remarks. I will take a backseat to no one when it
comes to defending our country against terrorism. I fully support the
use of military commissions to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite
judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. Unlike the Administration, I trust the United States
military and our legal system to arbitrate decisions related to enemy
combatants.
I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must
be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my
view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting
victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in
accordance with the rule of law.
My legislation provides essential legal tools for our war on terror
in seven key ways: It restores the writ of habeas corpus for
individuals held in U.S. custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful
enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities
against the United States who are not lawful combatants. It prevents
the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral
practices of torture and coercion. It empowers military judges to
exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the
military commissions. It limits the authority of the President to
interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and
makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight.
Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its
provisions.
Before I elaborate on each of these critical points, let me simply
underscore the point that for more than 200 years, our Nation has
served as a shining example in its promotion of civil and human rights
throughout the world. Denial of basic legal proceedings to individuals
held in the custody of the United States has raised questions over our
basic adherence to the U.S. Constitution and also diminished our
reputation around the world. American citizens are questioning their
own government's judgments, terrorists are citing American abuses to
recruit new loyalists, and American servicemembers fear detention
overseas under similarly abusive conditions in violation of their human
rights.
Supporters of the administration's law may say that to speak out
against its enactment is being soft on terrorism. Not only is this
sentiment wholly inaccurate, it underestimates a fundamental strength
of our Nation and the best defense against terrorists--respect for the
rule of law.
For instance, the administration-backed law eliminates the principle
of habeas corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since
before the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Under the writ of habeas
corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions.
My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of
military commissions.
The administration's approach allows the President to remove anyone
he so chooses from America's standard jurisprudence and designate him
or her as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he has engaged in
hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. Such
individuals are subject to arrest and detention indefinitely without
charge. In contrast, my legislation allows the designation of
``unlawful enemy combatants'' only for those individuals engaged in
armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to
curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that
holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will
prove

[[Page S11060]]

to be the exception rather than the norm.
Also, unlike the law backed by the administration, my bill further
promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use
of evidence gained by coercion in a trial. Such a provision is
critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has
been proven ineffective in interrogations when a detainee simply says
what he believes an interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the
torture. Second it deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite U.S.
actions to justify their own misconduct toward future American POWs.
My bill grants discretion to military judges to exclude hearsay
evidence determined to be unreliable. Under my legislation, judges are
given discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on
the innocence of an individual, but is excluded due to national
security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient.
America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to
handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to
recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's
bench and an affront to the U.S. military legal system. Moreover, my
bill properly grants the Armed Forces judicial review of these
decisions unlike the administration's law which denies the United
States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces the right to hearing
military commission appeals.
And, just as important as restoring our commitment in the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, my legislation would also reaffirm America's
commitment to the contents of the Geneva Conventions. In contrast, the
Administration's Military Commissions Act gives unprecedented authority
to the president to define what interrogation techniques constitute
``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. The United States
President should not have the right to unilaterally define the legal
boundaries of torture. The United States Congress has ratified
universally recognized conventions prohibiting such conduct, and the
President should recognize them as the law of the land. Indeed, there
is a lesson to be learned in the events of the last 6 years,
particularly in the case of Abu Ghraib, when not only was our Nation's
reputation tarnished, but our commitment to the rule of law was
credibly called into question. This is not the America our Nation's
greatest generations have long fought for. Our country would have been
better served if we had looked to the pages of history to guide us
through this national crisis.
Just 60 years ago, the United States confronted the daunting task of
bringing history's most despicable war criminals to justice. In
determining how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of grave atrocities,
our country never forgot its pivotal role as the leader of the free
world. There were strong and persuasive voices crying for the execution
of these men who had commanded, with ruthless efficiency, the slaughter
of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men, women, and
children. Why should these men who had extinguished so many lives be
given a trial at all? Why should they not be subjected to the same fate
to which they had subjected countless innocent people? Why not just
shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted? Why not just give in to legal
scholars, who said there was no court, no judge, no laws, and no
precedent?
Why not? Because, as I have recounted on this floor on several
occasions, America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at
Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father,
rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial. In
doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this Nation should never tailor
its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we
did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.
Almost 60 years to the day after the Nuremberg verdicts, Congress
passed the Military Commissions Act, with the support of the
administration which steps away from the high principles established at
Nuremberg and honored in the decades since. In my view, this law has
dishonored our Nation's proud history.
Indeed, to watch the Senate, on the anniversary of Nuremberg, negate
these great principles and traditions was one of the saddest days I
have seen in a quarter century of service in this body. It pains me to
no end to have seen the administration and its allies rush this bill
through Congress in the days before an election with hopes of
exploiting Americans' fears of a terrorist attack. This administration
would have the American people believe that the war on terror requires
a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the
basic tenets upon which our country was founded--but not both. This
canard is untrue and frankly negligent.
I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake. And
that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most
important one--it will ensure that each of the provisions of the
administration's Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our
Nation's courts, and appropriately evaluated for their
constitutionality. I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding
the legality and probity of this highly controversial statute. But I
believe it is essential for America's security and moral authority to
allow those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our
esteemed judiciary--to have an opportunity to overturn the most
egregious provisions of this Act.
In turn, we in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a
bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our
international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to
provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools
required by the global war on terror.
I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences if we fail to
correct the mistakes that have been made. I hope that Congress and the
administration will take a serious look at my proposal and work with me
to improve the current system, for the sake of our security, our
international standing, and our commitment to the rule of law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 4060

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 ``Effective Terrorists
Prosecution Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.

Paragraph (1) of section 948a of title 10, United States
Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-366)), is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Unlawful enemy combatant.--The term `unlawful enemy
combatant' means an individual who directly participates in
hostilities as part of an armed conflict against the United
States who is not a lawful enemy combatant. The term is used
solely to designate individuals triable by military
commission under this chapter.''.

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS BY
COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL NOT
DISPOSITIVE FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

Section 948d of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366)),
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).

SEC. 4. EXCLUSION FROM TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF
STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY COERCION.

Section 948r of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366)),
is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting
the following new subsection (c):
``(c) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Coercion.--A
statement obtained by use of coercion shall not be admissible
in a military commission under this chapter, except against a
person accused of coercion as evidence that the statement was
made.''.

SEC. 5. DISCRETION OF MILITARY JUDGE TO EXCLUDE HEARSAY
EVIDENCE DETERMINED TO BE UNRELIABLE OR LACKING
IN PROBATIVE VALUE.

Section 949a(b)(2)(E)(ii) of title 10, United States Code
(as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-366)), is amended by striking ``if the party opposing
the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence
is unreliable or lacking in probative value'' and inserting
``if the military judge determines, upon motion by counsel,
that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative
value''.

[[Page S11061]]

SEC. 6. DISCRETION OF MILITARY JUDGE TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS
IN EVENT THAT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CLASSIFIED
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROTECT
THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

Section 949j(d)(1) of title 10, United States Code (as
enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-366)), is amended by adding at the end the following:
``If the military judge determines that the substitute is not
sufficient to protect the right of the defendant to a fair
trial, the military judge may--
``(A) dismiss the charges in their entirety;
``(B) dismiss the charges or specifications or both to
which the information relates; or
``(C) take such other actions as may be required in the
interest of justice.''.

SEC. 7. REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS BY UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
RATHER THAN COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION
REVIEW.

(a) Review.--
(1) In general.--Section 950f of title 10, United States
Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-366)), is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 950f. Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

``(a) Cases To Be Reviewed.--The United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces, in accordance with procedures
prescribed under regulations of the Secretary, shall review
the record in each case that is referred to the Court by the
convening authority under section 950c of this title with
respect to any matter of law raised by the accused.
``(b) Scope of Review.--In a case reviewed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under this
section, the Court may only act with respect to matters of
law.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter VI of chapter 47A of such title (as
so enacted) is amended by striking the item relating to
section 950f and inserting the following new item:

``950f. Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.''.

(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as so enacted), is further amended as follows:
(A) In section 950c(a), by striking ``the Court of Military
Commission Review'' and inserting ``the United States Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
(B) In section 950d, by striking ``the Court of Military
Commission Review'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
(C) In section 950g(a)(2), by striking ``the Court of
Military Commission Review'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces''.
(D) In section 950h, by striking ``the Court of Military
Commission Review'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
(2) Uniform code of military justice.--Section 867a(a) of
title 10, United States Code (article 67a(a) of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking
``Decisions'' and inserting ``Except as provided in sections
950d and 950g of this title, decisions''.

SEC. 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 6(a) of the Military Commissions
Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting after
``international character'' the following: ``and preserve the
capacity of the United States to prosecute nationals of enemy
powers for engaging in acts against members of the United
States Armed Forces and United States citizens that have been
prosecuted by the United States as war crimes in the past'';
and
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``the President has the authority for the
United States to interpret the meaning and application of the
Geneva Conventions and to promulgate'' and inserting ``the
President has the authority, subject to congressional
oversight and judicial review, to promulgate''; and
(ii) by striking ``higher standards and'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``interpretations''
and inserting ``rules''; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) The President shall notify other parties to the
Geneva Conventions that the United States expects members of
the United States Armed Forces and other United States
citizens detained in a conflict not of an international
character to be treated in a manner consistent with the
standards described in subparagraph (A) and embodied in
section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
subsection (b).''.
(b) Modifications of War Crimes Offenses.--
(1) Inclusion of denial of trial rights among offenses.--
Paragraph (1) of section 2441(d) of title 18, United States
Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006), is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) Denial of trial rights.--The act of a person who
intentionally denies one or more persons the right to be
tried before a regularly constituted court affording all the
judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples as prescribed by common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions.''.
(2) Definition of serious physical pain or suffering.--
Clause (ii) of subparagraph ((D) of paragraph (2) of such
section (as so enacted) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) serious physical pain;''.

SEC. 9. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR INDIVIDUALS DETAINED
BY THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Restoration.--Subsection (e) of section 2241 of title
28, United States Code, as amended by section 7(a) of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 7 of
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is
repealed.

SEC. 10. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS
ACT OF 2006.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following
rules shall apply to any civil action, including an action
for declaratory judgment, that challenges any provision of
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), or
any amendment made by that Act, on the ground that such
provision or amendment violates the Constitution or the laws
of the United States:
(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard in that
Court by a court of three judges convened pursuant to section
2284 of title 28, United States Code.
(2) An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
in an action under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable as a
matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of
appeal filed within 10 days after the date on which such
judgment, decree, or order is entered. The jurisdictional
statement with respect to any such appeal shall be filed
within 30 days after the date on which such judgment, decree,
or order is entered.
(3) It shall be the duty of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of
the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to
the greatest possible extent the disposition of any action or
appeal, respectively, brought under this section.

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on
October 17, 2006, the date of the enactment of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), immediately
after the enactment of that Act and shall apply to all cases,
without exception, that are pending on or after such date.
______

By Mr. DODD:
S. 4061. A bill to create, adopt, and implement rigorous and
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics and
science covering kindergarten through grade 12, to provide for the
assessment of student proficiency bench marked against such standards,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Standards to
Provide Educational Access for Kids (SPEAK) Act. This bill will create,
adopt, and implement voluntary core American education content
standards in math and science while incentivizing states to adopt them.
America's leadership, economic, and national security rest on our
commitment to educate and prepare our youth to succeed in a global
economy. The key to succeeding in this endeavor is to have high
expectations for all American students as they progress through our
nation's schools.
Currently there are 50 different sets of academic standards, 50 State
assessments, and 50 definitions of proficiency under the No Child Left
Behind Act. As a result of varied standards, exams and proficiency
levels, America's highly mobile student-aged population moves through
the nation's schools gaining widely varying levels of knowledge, skills
and preparedness. And yet, in order for the United States to compete in
a global economy, we must strengthen our educational expectations for
all American children--we must compete as one Nation.
Recent international comparisons show that American students have
significant shortcomings in math and science. Many lack the basic
skills required for college or the workplace. This affects our economic
and national security: It holds us back in the global marketplace and
risks ceding our competitive edge. This is unacceptable.
America was founded on the notion of ensuring equity in opportunity
for all. And yet, we risk both when we allow different students in
different states to graduate from high school with very different
educations. We live

[[Page S11062]]

in a Nation with an unacceptably high high school dropout rate. We live
in a nation where 8th graders in some states score more than 30 points
higher on tests of basic science knowledge than students in other
states. I ask my colleagues today what equality of opportunity we have
under such circumstances.
This is where American standards come in. Voluntary, core American
standards in math and science are the first step in ensuring that all
American students are given the same opportunity to learn to a high
standard no matter where they reside. They will allow for meaningful
comparisons of student academic achievement across states, help ensure
that American students are academically qualified to enter college, or
training for the civilian or military workforce, and, help ensure that
students are better prepared to compete in the global marketplace.
Uniform standards are a first step in maintaining America's competitive
and national security edge.
While I realize there will be resistance to such efforts, education
is after all a state endeavor; we cannot ignore that at the end of the
day America competes as one country on the global marketplace. This
does not mean that I am asking States to cede their authority in
education. What the bill simply proposes is that we the convening power
of the federal government to develop standards and then provide states
with incentives to adopt them.
At the end of the day, this is a voluntary measure. States will
choose whether or not to participate. States that do participate, while
required to adopt the American standards, will be given the flexibility
to make them their own. They will have the option to add additional
content requirements, they will have final say in how coursework is
sequenced, and, ultimately, States and districts will still be the ones
developing the curriculum, choosing the textbooks and administering the
tests. The standards provided for under this legislation will simply
serve as a common core.
Here is what the SPEAK Act will do. It will task the National
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) with creating rigorous and voluntary
core American education content standards in math and science for
grades K-12. It will require that such standards be anchored in the
National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) math and science
frameworks. It will ensure that such standards are internationally
competitive and comparable to the best standards in the world. It will
develop rigorous achievement levels. It will ensure that varying
developmental levels of students are taken into account in the
development of such standards. It will provide for periodic review and
update of such standards. It will allow participating States the
flexibility to add additional standards to the core. And, it
establishes an American standards Incentive Fund to incentivize states
to adopt the standards. Among the benefits of participating is a huge
infusion of funds for states to bolster their K-12 data systems.
What I propose today is a first step. A first step in regaining our
competitive edge. A first step in ensuring that all American students
have the opportunity to receive a first class, high-quality,
competitive education. I am hoping that the bill I introduce today will
at the very least spark a discussion. A discussion about what it is
that we want for future generations and how we will set along the path
to get it to them.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act
and look forward to resuming the discussion and reintroducing this
important initiative in the coming Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 4061

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 ``Standards to Provide
Educational Access for Kids Act'' or the ``SPEAK Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Throughout the years, educators and policymakers have
consistently embraced standards as the mechanism to ensure
that every student, no matter what school the student
attends, masters the skills and develops the knowledge needed
to participate in a global economy.
(2) Recent international comparisons make clear that
students in the United States have significant shortcomings
in mathematics and science, yet a high level of scientific
and mathematics literacy is essential to societal innovations
and advancements.
(3) With more than 50 different sets of academic content
standards, 50 State academic assessments, and 50 definitions
of proficiency under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)), there is
great variability in the measures, standards, and benchmarks
for academic achievement in mathematics and science.
(4) Variation in State standards and the accompanying
measures of proficiency make it difficult for parents and
teachers to meaningfully gauge how well their children are
learning mathematics and science in comparison to their peers
internationally or here at home.
(5) The disparity in the rigor of standards across States
results in test results that tell the public little about how
schools are performing and progressing, as States with low
standards or low proficiency scores may appear to be doing
much better than States with more rigorous standards or
higher requirements for proficiency.
(6) As a result, the United States' highly mobile student-
aged population moves through the Nation's schools gaining
widely varying levels of knowledge, skills, and preparedness.
(7) In order for the United States to compete in a global
economy, the country needs to strengthen its educational
expectations for all children.
(8) To compete, the people of the United States must
compare themselves against international benchmarks.
(9) Grounded in a real world analysis and international
comparisons of what students need to succeed in work and
college, rigorous and voluntary core American education
content standards will keep the United States economically
competitive and ensure that the children of the United States
are given the same opportunity to learn to a high standard no
matter where they reside.
(10) Rigorous and voluntary core American education content
standards in mathematics and science will enable students to
succeed in academic settings across States while ensuring an
American edge in the global marketplace.

SEC. 3. ASSESSING SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS.

(a) National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act.--Section 303 of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science'';
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``science,'';
(iv) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting
``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``, require, or
influence'' and inserting ``or require''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting
``reading, mathematics, and science''.
(b) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--
Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 1111(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 6311(c)(2))--
(A) by inserting ``(and, for science, beginning with the
2007-2008 school year)'' after ``2002-2003''; and
(B) by striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting
``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
(2) in section 1112(b)(1)(F) (20 U.S.C. 6312(b)(1)(F)), by
striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting ``reading,
mathematics, and science''.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

Section 304 of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9623) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``In
this title:'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise provided,
in this title:'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Education.''.

[[Page S11063]]

SEC. 5. VOLUNTARY AMERICAN EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS;
AMERICAN STANDARDS INCENTIVE FUND.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 304 (as amended by section 4)
and 305 as sections 306 and 307, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 303 the following:

``SEC. 304. CREATION AND ADOPTION OF VOLUNTARY AMERICAN
EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational Access for
Kids Act and from amounts appropriated under section
307(a)(3) for a fiscal year, the Assessment Board shall
create and adopt voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science covering kindergarten
through grade 12.
``(b) Duties.--The Assessment Board shall implement
subsection (a) by carrying out the following duties:
``(1) Create and adopt voluntary American education content
standards for mathematics and science covering kindergarten
through grade 12 that reflect a common core of what students
in the United States should know and be able to do to compete
in a global economy.
``(2) Anchor the voluntary American education content
standards based on the mathematics and science frameworks and
the achievement levels under section 303(e) of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress for grades 4, 8, and 12.
``(3) Ensure that the voluntary American education content
standards are internationally competitive and comparable to
the best standards in the world.
``(4) Review State standards in mathematics and science as
of the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide
Educational Access for Kids Act and consult and work with
entities that are developing, or have already developed, such
State standards.
``(5) Review the reports, views, and analyses of a broad
spectrum of experts and the public as such reports, views,
and analyses relate to mathematics and science education,
including reviews of blue ribbon reports, exemplary practices
in the field, and recent reports by government agencies and
professional organizations.
``(6) Ensure that the voluntary American education content
standards reflect the best thinking about the knowledge,
skills, and competencies needed for a high degree of
scientific and mathematical understanding.
``(7) Ensure that varying developmental levels of students
are taken into account in the development of the voluntary
American education content standards.
``(8) Ensure that the voluntary American education content
standards reflect what students will be required to know and
be able to do after secondary school graduation to be
academically qualified to enter an institution of higher
education or training for the civilian or military workforce.
``(9) Widely disseminate the voluntary American education
content standards for public review and comment before final
adoption.
``(10) Provide for continuing review of the voluntary
American education content standards not less often than once
every 10 years, which review--
``(A) shall solicit input from outside organizations and
entities, including--
``(i) 1 or more professional mathematics or science
organizations;
``(ii) the State educational agencies that have received
American Standards Incentive Fund grants under section 305
during the period covered by the review; and
``(iii) other organizations and entities, as determined
appropriate by Assessment Board; and
``(B) shall address issues including--
``(i) whether the voluntary American education content
standards continue to reflect international standards of
excellence and the latest developments in the fields of
mathematics and science; and
``(ii) whether the voluntary American education content
standards continue to reflect what students are required to
know and be able to do in science and mathematics after
graduation from secondary school to be academically qualified
to enter an institution of higher education or training for
the civilian or military workforce, as of the date of the
review.

``SEC. 305. THE AMERICAN STANDARDS INCENTIVE FUND.

``(a) Establishment of Fund.--From amounts appropriated
under section 307(a)(4) for a fiscal year, the Secretary
shall establish and fund the American Standards Incentive
fund to carry out the grant program under subsection (b).
``(b) Incentive Grant Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the
Assessment Board adopts the voluntary American education
content standards under section 304, the Secretary shall use
amounts available from the American Standards Incentive fund
to award, on a competitive basis, grants to State educational
agencies to enable each State educational agency to adopt the
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics
and science as the core of the State's academic content
standards in mathematics and science by carrying out the
activities described in subsection (e).
``(2) Duration and amount.--A grant under this subsection
shall be awarded--
``(A) for a period of not more than 4 years; and
``(B) in an amount that is not more than $4,000,000 over
the period of the grant.
``(c) Core Standards.--A State educational agency receiving
a grant under subsection (b) shall adopt and use the
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics
and science as the core of the State academic content
standards in mathematics and science. The State educational
agency may add additional standards to the voluntary American
education content standards as part of the State academic
content standards in mathematics and science.
``(d) State Application.--A State educational agency
desiring to receive 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.
The application shall include--
``(1) timelines for carrying out each of the activities
described in subsection (e)(1); and
``(2) a description of the activities that the State
educational agency will undertake to implement the voluntary
American education content standards in mathematics and
science adopted under section 304, and the achievement levels
in mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for
the national and State assessments of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress, at both the State educational agency
and local educational agency levels, including any additional
activities described in subsection (e)(2).
``(e) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Mandatory activities.--A State educational agency
receiving a grant under subsection (b) shall use grant funds
to carry out all of the following:
``(A) Adopt the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science as the core of the
State's academic content standards in mathematics and science
not later than 2 years after the receipt of a grant under
this section.
``(B) Align the teacher certification or licensure, pre-
service, and professional development requirements of the
State to the voluntary American education content standards
in mathematics and science not later than 3 years after the
receipt of the grant.
``(C) Align the State academic assessments in mathematics
and science (or develop new such State academic assessments
that are aligned) with the voluntary American education
content standards in mathematics and science not later than 4
years after the receipt of the grant.
``(D) Align the State levels of achievement in mathematics
and science with the student achievement levels in
mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for
the national and State assessments of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress.
``(2) Permissive activities.--A State educational agency
receiving a grant under subsection (b) may use the grant
funds to carry out, at the local educational agency or State
educational agency level, any of the following activities:
``(A) Train teachers and administrators on how to
incorporate the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science into classroom
instruction.
``(B) Develop curricula and instructional materials in
mathematics or science that are aligned with the voluntary
American education content standards in mathematics and
science.
``(C) Develop performance standards in mathematics or
science to accompany the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science.
``(D) Conduct other activities needed for the
implementation of the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science.
``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section the
Secretary shall give priority to a State educational agency
that will use the grant funds to carry out all of the
activities described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
paragraph (2).
``(f) Award Basis.--In determining the amount of a grant
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall take into
consideration--
``(1) the extent to which a State's academic content
standards, State academic assessments, levels of achievement
in mathematics and science, and teacher certification or
licensure, pre-service, and professional development
requirements, must be revised to align such State standards,
assessments, levels, and teacher requirements with the
voluntary American education content standards adopted under
section 304 and the achievement levels in mathematics and
science developed under section 303(e); and
``(2) the planned activities described in the application
submitted under subsection (d).
``(g) Annual State Educational Agency Reports.--A State
educational agency receiving a grant under subsection (b)
shall submit an annual report to the Secretary demonstrating
the State educational agency's progress in meeting the
timelines described in the application under subsection
(d)(1).
``(h) Grants for DoD and BIA Schools.--
``(1) Department of defense schools.--From amounts
available from the American Standards Incentive fund, the
Secretary, upon application by the Secretary of Defense, may
award grants under subsection (b) to the Secretary of Defense
on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools
operated by the Department of Defense to enable

[[Page S11064]]

the elementary schools and secondary schools to carry out the
activities described in subsection (e).
``(2) Bureau of indian affairs schools.--From amounts
available from the American Standards Incentive fund, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior,
may award grants under subsection (b) to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools
operated or funded by the Department of the Interior to
enable the elementary schools and secondary schools to carry
out the activities described in subsection (e).
``(i) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the completion
of the first 4-year grant cycle for grants under this
section, the Commissioner for Education Statistics shall
carry out a study comparing the gap between the reported
proficiency on State academic assessments and assessments
under section 303 for State educational agencies receiving
grants under subsection (b), before and after the State
adopts the voluntary American education content standards in
mathematics and science as the core of the State education
content standards in mathematics and science.
``(j) Data Grant.--
``(1) Program authorized.--From amounts appropriated under
section 305(a)(4), the Secretary shall award, to each State
educational agency that meets the requirements of paragraph
(3), a grant to be used to enhance State data systems as such
systems relate to the requirements under part A of title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(2) Amount of grant.--A grant awarded to a State
educational agency under this subsection shall be in an
amount equal to 5 percent of the amount allocated to the
State under section 1122 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6332). If the amounts
available from the American Standards Incentive fund are
insufficient to pay the full amounts of grants under
paragraph (1) to all State educational agencies, the
Secretary shall ratably reduce the amount of all grants under
this subsection.
``(3) Requirements.--In order to receive a grant under this
subsection, a State educational agency shall--
``(A) have received a grant under subsection (b); and
``(B) successfully demonstrate to the Secretary that the
State has aligned--
``(i) the State's academic content standards and State
academic assessments in mathematics and science, and the
State's teacher certification or licensure, pre-service, and
professional development requirements, with the voluntary
American education content standards in mathematics and
science; and
``(ii) the State levels of achievement in mathematics and
science for grades 4, 8, and 12, with the achievement levels
in mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for
such grades.
``(4) Nature of grant.--A grant under this subsection to a
State educational agency shall be in addition to any grant
awarded to the State educational agency under subsection (b).
``(5) Limit on number of grants.--In no case shall a State
educational agency receive more than 1 grant under this
subsection.
``(k) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational
Access for Kids Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the status of
all grants awarded under this section.
``(l) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to establish a preferred national curriculum or
preferred teaching methodology for elementary school or
secondary school instruction.
``(m) Timeline Extension.--The Secretary may extend the 12-
year requirement under section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)(F)) by not more than 4 years for a State served by
a State educational agency that receives a grant under
subsection (b).
``(n) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) In general.--The terms `elementary school', `local
educational agency', `professional development', `secondary
school', `State', and `State educational agency' have the
meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(2) Academic content standards.--The term `academic
content standards' means the challenging academic content
standards described in section 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1)).
``(3) Levels of achievement.--The term `levels of
achievement' means the State levels of achievement under
subclauses (II) and (III) of section 1111(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II), (III)).
``(4) State academic assessments.--The term `State academic
assessments' means the academic assessments for a State
described in section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).''.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 307(a) of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (as redesignated by section 5(1))
(20 U.S.C. 9624(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be
appropriated--
``(1) to carry out section 302, $6,000,000 for fiscal year
2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding
fiscal year;
``(2) to carry out section 303, $200,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year;
``(3) to carry out section 304, $3,000,000 for fiscal year
2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding
fiscal year; and
``(4) to carry out section 305, $400,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year.''.
______

By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 4062. A bill to freeze non-defense discretionary spending at
fiscal year 2007 levels effective in fiscal year 2008; to the Committee
on the Budget.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an
area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties
profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear
individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I
usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some
discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the
other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we
actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere
words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have
confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the
aisle.
Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually
held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the
rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's
non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the
rate of inflation.
Again, we are faced with the same task.
The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed
to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we
must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary
spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator
Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant
manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut
spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need
to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . .
[be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we
must hold down discretionary spending.
Well, let's hold down discretionary spending.
I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this
bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly
all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it
twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are
promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008
and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trost-fund, discretionary spending
shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds
vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending.
It is very simple, cut and dry, something that can pass. I hope those
individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will recognize
this is something that is doable.
I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent
budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages
long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and
program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on
total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put,
the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can
control discretionary spending.
I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of
government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I
have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills,
but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this
year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single
time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other
side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a
debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for
fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the
need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal

[[Page S11065]]

restraint. I guess for some, it truly is much easier said than done.
So, I am offering it again.
I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act
of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year
2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary
spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a
two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in
holding down spending.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 4062

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 ``Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2006''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Enforcement.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(g) Excess Non-Defense Discretionary Federal Spending
Reduction Point of Order.--
``(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or
resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference report on
that bill or resolution) that would cause spending for non-
defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending for the
budget year to exceed the amount of spending for such
activities in fiscal year 2007.
``(2) Allocations.--The allocations under section 302(a)
shall include allocations for the amount described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Super majority waiver or appeal.--This subsection may
be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate,
duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to
sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of
order raised under this subsection.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning
with fiscal year 2008.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 4063. A bill to provide for additional section 8 vouchers, to
reauthorize the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Affordable
Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing
affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around
the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and
affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and
federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also
providing over $3 billion in deficit reduction.
Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability
challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing
affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters
throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and
secure housing is about more than just providing families with
somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children
with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve
at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows
families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities
including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save
money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites
around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable
housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that
families have to undertake in order to afford housing.
Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more,
available in the United States. Research shows that the number of
families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million
households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families
spends more than thirty percent of their earnings on housing costs. The
National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000
Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million
Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities,
towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack
of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that
confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans.
Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of
Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance
to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe
and affordable housing.
Congress has created effective affordable housing and community
development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal
social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do
not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we
can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into
account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in
1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's
budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized.
Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the
demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of
Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list
for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours
and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not
accepted new applications for Section 8 in over three years and reports
that hundreds of families are on the waiting list.
Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country.
According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness
Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in
Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and
currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its
waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its
waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical
waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given
these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8
vouchers than currently exist.
While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to
be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government
agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of
Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their
housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined
that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8
program costs less than it would through other federal housing
programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission
reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost-
effective, and successful in its mission.''
The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to
be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters
access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also
called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for
families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the
calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for
100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually
by Congress.
My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000
incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2007. I have identified enough
funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000
vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the
total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it
is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were
passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of
these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine
where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide
sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program.
According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers
have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to
four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it
will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to
find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased
funding for Section 8 vouchers.

[[Page S11066]]

We should examine doing more than just providing more money for
Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of
Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging
from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to
rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens
landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program.
Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula
the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I
look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to
address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more
effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the
country.
But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the
housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to
increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our
communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable
to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments
Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990
to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing
for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows
participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new
production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other
existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low
income Americans throughout the country.
According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23
billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating
jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units
committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports
that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in
my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and
have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and
States around the country are able to report numerous success stories
in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to
participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial
Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and
recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.
Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has
seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9
billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than
$1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating
jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some
jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to
ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we
must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in
need.
But Mr. President, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs
to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation
seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by
using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating
jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating
jurisdictions use these set-aside dollars to produce, rehab, or
preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or
people at 30 percent of area median income or below.
As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe
affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data
from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low
income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues
while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with
affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low
income owner households are severely burdened by affordability
concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with
severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families
and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half
of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing
Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in
America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income
renter households and the number of units available to them with
acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted
that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or
production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.
Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe
and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area
median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of
the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard
from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective
housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is
why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program;
local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of
the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary
and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.

Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding
under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the
needs of the extremely low income families in their respective
communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this
funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on
how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are
intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating
jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that
the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding
for extremely low income households in no way excuses such
jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve
extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding
will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to
dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing
for the most vulnerable Americans.
My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant
program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination
Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program
has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired
in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which
provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing
authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200
million per year for five years for this program.
After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics
indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across
the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime
increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest,
violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing
authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the
effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their
resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with
funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related
crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their
tenants.
Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug
Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long
enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator
Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing
and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded
numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the
country.
In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important
programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of
Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day
to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work
collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the
Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public
safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year,
dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and

[[Page S11067]]

sales, and other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the
Housing Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs
through the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site
agencies, providing youths and others living in public housing with a
variety of educational, job training and life skill programs.
When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002
budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures
should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised
an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP
funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to
continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in
the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can
be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee--
have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of
their crime reduction programs.
It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants.
Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide
housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing
entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.
But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with
grant money. The Federal government also needs to provide more
resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most
effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains
several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program.
It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R)
to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and
issue a report within six months identifying effective programs,
providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require
PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to
develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation
of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant
program that have not previously been subject to that type of
evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of
information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require
HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns
from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most
effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted
housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related
guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving
the effectiveness of the program going forward.
As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use
of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on
their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program
was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can
be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used
inappropriately.
My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on
Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the
outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry,
Senator Reed, and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a
National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with
them and others in the 110th to push for the creation of such a trust
fund.
I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the
goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next
10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect
the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and
very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local
communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing
units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters
the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.
Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and
states throughout the country, including recently in the city of
Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for
working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces
and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help
Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe
and affordable housing to all Americans.
This bill is the third of four proposals I am introducing this year
to address some of the domestic issues that have been raised with me
over the years by my constituents, some of them at the listening
sessions I hold annually in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Previous
proposals addressed health care reform and the trade deficit.
This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our
most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and,
unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are
struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families.
This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that
communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This
issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head,
however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs,
better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans.
Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work
together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all
Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the next Congress to advance my bill and
other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the goal of
affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 4063

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 ``Affordable Housing Expansion
and Public Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 VOUCHERS.

(a) In General.--In fiscal year 2007 and subject to
renewal, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide an additional 100,000 incremental vouchers for
tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 8(o) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)).
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$8,400,000,000 for the provision and renewal of the vouchers
described in subsection (a).
(2) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall remain available until expended.
(3) Carryover.--To the extent that any amounts appropriated
for any fiscal are not expended by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development in such fiscal year for purposes of
subsection (a), any remaining amounts shall be carried
forward for use by the Secretary to renew the vouchers
described in subsection (a) in subsequent years.
(c) Distribution of Amounts.--
(1) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may not use more
than $800,000,000 of the amounts authorized under paragraph
(1) to cover the administrative costs associated with the
provision and renewal of the vouchers described in subsection
(a).
(2) Voucher costs.--The Secretary shall use all remaining
amounts authorized under paragraph (1) to cover the costs of
providing and renewing the vouchers described in subsection
(a).

SEC. 3. TARGETED EXPANSION OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
(HOME) PROGRAM.

(a) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are as follows:
(1) To authorize additional funding under subtitle A of
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12741 et seq.), commonly referred to as the
Home Investments Partnership (``HOME'') program, to provide
dedicated funding for the expansion and preservation of
housing for extremely low-income individuals and families
through eligible uses of investment as defined in paragraphs
(1) and (3) of section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act.
(2) Such additional funding is intended to supplement the
HOME funds already allocated to a participating jurisdiction
to provide additional assistance in targeting resources to
extremely low-income individuals and families.
(3) Such additional funding is not intended to be the only
source of assistance for extremely low-income individuals and
families under the HOME program, and participating
jurisdictions shall continue to use non-set aside HOME funds
to provide assistance to

[[Page S11068]]

such extremely low-income individuals and families.
(b) Set Aside for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and
Families.--
(1) Eligible use.--Section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Extremely low-income individuals and families.--
``(A) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall
use funds provided under this subtitle to provide affordable
housing to individuals and families whose incomes do not
exceed 30 percent of median family income for that
jurisdiction.
``(B) Exception.--If a participating jurisdiction can
certify to the Secretary that such participating jurisdiction
has met in its jurisdiction the housing needs of extremely
low-income individuals and families described in subparagraph
(A), such participating jurisdiction may use any remaining
funds provided under this subtitle for purposes of
subparagraph (A) to provide affordable housing to individuals
and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of median
family income for that jurisdiction.
``(C) Rule of construction.--The Secretary shall notify
each participating jurisdiction receiving funds for purposes
of this paragraph that use of such funds, as required under
subparagraph (A), does not exempt or prevent that
participating jurisdiction from using any other funds awarded
under this subtitle to provide affordable housing to
extremely low-income individuals and families.
``(D) Rental housing.--Notwithstanding section 215(a),
housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable
housing under this paragraph only if such housing is occupied
by extremely low-income individuals or families who pay as a
contribution toward rent (excluding any Federal or State
rental subsidy provided on behalf of the individual or
family) not more than 30 percent of the monthly adjusted
income of such individual or family, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
(2) Pro rata distribution.--Section 217 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12747) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Pro Rata Distribution for Extremely Low-Income
Individuals and Families.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, in any fiscal year the Secretary shall
allocate any funds specifically approved in an appropriations
Act to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income
individuals or families under section 212(a)(6), such funds
shall be allocated to each participating jurisdiction in an
amount which bears the same ratio to such amount as the
amount such participating jurisdiction receives for such
fiscal year under this subtitle, not including any amounts
allocated for any additional set-asides specified in such
appropriations Act for that fiscal year.''.
(3) Certification.--Section 226 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12756) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall
certify on annual basis to the Secretary that any funds used
to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income
individuals or families under section 212(a)(6) were actually
used to assist such families.
``(2) Content of certification.--Each certification
required under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) state the number of extremely low-income individuals
and families assisted in the previous 12 months;
``(B) separate such extremely low-income individuals and
families into those individuals and families who were
assisted by--
``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and
families under section 212(a)(6); and
``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle; and
``(C) describe the type of activities, including new
construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing,
provided to such extremely low-income individuals and
families that were supported by--
``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and
families under section 212(a)(6); and
``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle.
``(3) Inclusion with performance report.--The certification
required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the
jurisdiction's annual performance report submitted to the
Secretary under section 108(a) and made available to the
public.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any
other amounts authorized to be appropriated under any other
law or appropriations Act to carry out the provisions of
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12701 et. seq), there are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

SEC. 4. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG
ELIMINATION PROGRAM.

(a) Title Change.--The chapter heading of chapter 2 of
subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 2--PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG ELIMINATION
PROGRAM''.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Amounts authorized.--Section 5129(a) of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11908(a)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this chapter $200,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.''.
(2) Set aside for the office of policy development and
research.--Section 5129 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
(42 U.S.C. 11908) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Set Aside for the Office of Policy Development and
Research.--Of any amounts made available in any fiscal year
to carry out this chapter not less than 2 percent shall be
available to the Office of Policy Development and Research to
carry out the functions required under section 5130.''.
(c) Eligible Activities.--Section 5124(a)(6) of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6)) is amended by
striking the semicolon and inserting the following: ``,
except that the activities conducted under any such program
and paid for, in whole or in part, with grant funds awarded
under this chapter may only include--
``(A) providing access to treatment for drug abuse through
rehabilitation or relapse prevention;
``(B) providing education about the dangers and adverse
consequences of drug use or violent crime;
``(C) assisting drug users in discontinuing their drug use
through an education program, and, if appropriate, referring
such users to a drug treatment program;
``(D) providing after school activities for youths for the
purpose of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or
violent crime by youths;
``(E) providing capital improvements for the purpose of
discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent
crime; and
``(F) providing security services for the purpose of
discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent
crime.''.
(d) Effectiveness.--
(1) Application plan.--Section 5125(a) of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``To the maximum extent feasible,
each plan submitted under this section shall be developed in
coordination with relevant local law enforcement agencies and
other local entities involved in crime prevention and
reduction. Such plan also shall include an agreement to work
cooperatively with the Office of Policy Development and
Research in its efforts to carry out the functions required
under section 5130.''
(2) HUD report.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Effectiveness Report.--The Secretary shall submit a
report to the Congress not later than 4 years after the date
of the enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and
Public Safety Act that includes--
``(1) aggregate data regarding the categories of program
activities that have been funded by grants under this
chapter;
``(2) promising strategies related to preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and
federally assisted low-income housing derived from--
``(A) a review of existing research; and
``(B) evaluations of programs funded by grants under this
chapter that were conducted by the Office of Policy
Development and Review or by the grantees themselves;
``(3) how the information gathered in paragraph (2) has
been incorporated into--
``(A) the guidance provided to applicants under this
chapter; and
``(B) the implementing regulations under this chapter; and
``(4) any statutory changes that the Secretary would
recommend to help make grants awarded under this chapter more
effective.''.
(3) Office of policy development and research review and
plan.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 5130. OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH REVIEW
AND PLAN.

``(a) Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Office of Policy Development and
Research established pursuant to section 501 of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1) shall
conduct a review of existing research relating to preventing
and reducing violent and drug-related crime to assess, using
scientifically rigorous and acceptable methods, which
strategies--
``(A) have been found to be effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crimes; and
``(B) would be likely to be effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crimes in public and
federally assisted low-income housing environments.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public
Safety Act, the Secretary shall issue a written report with
the results of the review required under paragraph (1).
``(b) Evaluation Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Upon completion of the review required
under subsection (a)(1), the Office of Policy Development and
Research, in consultation with housing authorities, social
scientists, and other interested parties, shall develop and
implement a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of
strategies funded under this chapter, including new and
innovative strategies and existing strategies,

[[Page S11069]]

that have not previously been subject to rigorous evaluation
methodologies.
``(2) Methodology.--The plan described in paragraph (1)
shall require such evaluations to use rigorous methodologies,
particularly random assignment (where practicable), that are
capable of producing scientifically valid knowledge regarding
which program activities are effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and other
federally assisted low-income housing.''.

SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A
NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Only 1 in 4 eligible households receives Federal rental
assistance.
(2) The number of families facing severe housing cost
burdens grew by almost 2,000,0000 households between 2001 and
2004.
(3) 1 in 3 families spend more than 30 percent of their
earnings on housing costs.
(4) More than 75 percent of renter households with severe
housing affordability burdens are extremely low-income
families.
(5) More than half of extremely low-income households pay
at least half of their income on housing.
(6) At least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day.
(7) 2,000,000 to 3,000,0000 Americans are homeless for
various lengths of time each year.
(8) It is estimated that the development of an average
housing unit creates on average more than 3 jobs and the
development of an average multifamily unit creates on average
more than 1 job.
(9) It is estimated that over $80,000 is produced in
government revenue for an average single family unit built
and over $30,000 is produced in government revenue for an
average multifamily unit built.
(10) The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission stated
that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the
mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter
households and the number of units available to them with
acceptable quality and affordable rents.''.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) Congress shall create a national affordable housing
trust fund with the purpose of supplying 1,500,000 additional
affordable housing units over the next 10 years;
(2) such a trust fund shall contain sufficient income
targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced
by extremely low-income and very low-income families; and
(3) such a trust fund shall contain enough flexibility to
allow local communities to produce, preserve, and
rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that
such affordable housing development fosters the creation of
healthy and sustainable communities.

SEC. 6. OFFSETS.

(a) Repeal of Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A
Raptor Fighter Aircraft.--Effective as of October 17, 2006,
section 134 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), relating to
multiyear procurement authority for F-22A Raptor fighter
aircraft, is repealed.
(b) Advanced Research for Fossil Fuels.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy shall not
carry out any program that conducts, or provides assistance
for, applied research for fossil fuels.
(c) Termination of Advanced Technology Program.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Commerce may not award any new grants under the Advanced
Technology Program, provided for under section 28 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278n), effective October 1, 2006.
______

By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 4064. A bill to improve the amendments made by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Improving No Child
Left Behind--INCLB--Act. As a father and a legislator, I am committed
to advocating for public education in Idaho and throughout the Nation.
Ensuring that every child receives a good education is one of my top
priorities. President Bush's sweeping education reforms included in the
No Child Left Behind Act have had measurable positive effects on many
students across the country, and I support the law's objective of
ensuring that every child achieves his or her potential.
However, given time to observe the implementation of the law, it is
now appropriate to review opportunities for needed improvements to the
underlying program. After conferring with a number of organizations in
Idaho and at the national level, I have identified implementation
concerns that seem common to various stakeholder groups. In response, I
have created the Improving No Child Left Behind Act. This bill contains
a number of workable, commonsense modifications to the law. These
provisions preserve the major focus on student achievement and
accountability and, at the same time, ensure that schools and school
districts are accurately and fairly assessed. The act ensures that
local schools and districts have more flexibility and control in
educating our Nation's children. The goal of the act is expressed in
its name: to improve No Child Left Behind.
The bill does a number of things: INCLB would allow supplemental
services like tutoring to be offered to students sooner than they are
currently available; INCLB would provide flexibility for States to use
additional types of assessment models for measuring student progress;
INCLB grants States more flexibility in assessing students with
disabilities; INCLB would ensure more fair and accurate assessments of
Limited English Proficiency--LEP--students; INCLB would create a
student testing participation range, providing flexibility for
uncontrollable variations in student attendance; INCLB would allow
schools to target resources to those student populations who need the
most attention by applying sanctions only when the same student group
fails to make adequate progress in the same subject for two consecutive
years; and INCLB would ensure that students are counted properly and
accurately in assessment and reporting systems.
Taken together, these provisions reflect a realistic assessment of
both the strengths and weaknesses of No Child Left Behind. While there
may be many issues that divide us, our responsibility in education is
clear. We must promote successful, meaningful public education for our
children. The INCLB Act will ensure that INCLB continues to be an
avenue to success for educators and students throughout Idaho and the
Nation.
______

By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 4065. A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on
the feasibility of collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of
school-related crime in elementary schools and secondary schools; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Accurate
Crime Trends for School Act, a bill that is critical in protecting our
children from crimes within their schools.
Each day, parents send their children off to school with a sense of
security that they are spending their day in a classroom free from
danger. The latest outbreaks of school violence and crimes are a clear
reminder that this is not always the case. While the majority of our
schools are safe, some parents send their children off to school only
to find that their child has become the victim of a crime.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires States and local educational
agencies to publicly report criminal activity in our schools, based on
their own reports and best-guess surveys. However, there is no Federal
crime reporting and tracking system for K-12 schools in the United
States.
I strongly believe that accurate data on the crimes occurring in our
schools will help us develop preventative measures and effectively
address crimes occurring in our nation's classrooms.
My bill, the Accurate Crime Trends (``ACT'') for Schools Act, directs
the Attorney General, in consultation with the FBI and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, to determine the
feasibility of expanding the National Incidents Based Reporting System
(``NIBRS'') to include information on K-12 school-related crime. NIBRS
is the FBI's comprehensive, detailed crime reporting system. It
provides a greater capability of reporting the details of crimes than
self-reporting or surveys do.
I want it to be clear that expanding NIBRS would not create a new
level of bureaucracy. This bill would neither bring the FBI into our
schools, nor place any new requirements or new burdens upon educators.
Expanding NIBRS would use existing crime reporting infrastructures to
collect specific K-12 crime data, allowing us to improve the safety of
our kids in school.
This year The Office of the New York State Comptroller released a
study that underscored the need for such legislation. The report showed
that at schools sampled, 80 percent of documented incidents of crimes
went unreported to the State, with a number of

[[Page S11070]]

these instances being serious crimes. This is the type of information
that we need that we are not currently getting.
As a parent, I truly believe it is imperative to be made aware of any
crime that takes place in our children's schools. Our parents,
educators, and children need and deserve a sense of comfort and
security from their schools. When we have accurate data on what is
occurring in our school, we will be able to develop effective policies
to make sure our schools are safe. This bill is a critical first step
in achieving this goal.
The infrastructure for collecting this data is already in place. All
we have to do is determine the best way to utilize it. The Accurate
Crime Trends for Schools Act will accomplish just that.
I hope that my colleagues will 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 bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 4065

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 ``Accurate Crime Trends for
Schools Act'' or the ``ACT for Schools Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.--The Attorney General shall, after consultation
with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of expanding the National
Incident-Based Reporting System to include information on the
occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools and
secondary schools. Such study shall include the
identification and evaluation of methods that may be used to
collect and report such information.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a
report containing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a) to the appropriate committees of Congress.
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary
school'' and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the
terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 2, $250,000 for fiscal year 2007.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Byrd,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Pryor, Mr.
Enzi, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Ensign):
S. 4067. A bill to provide for secondary transmissions of distant
network signals for private home viewing by certain satellite carriers;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators
Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, and Byrd, Pryor, Enzi, and Clinton
are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret
the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect
consumers--especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont.
This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that
soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV
services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major
corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help
corporations, but to help home satellite viewers.
A Federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly
and repeatedly violated Federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should
be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is
ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this:
EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did
not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the
penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit
had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any
distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will
suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the
country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the
free, over-the-air broadcast networks.
The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and--
most importantly--pro-consumer solution to a problem of Echo Star's
creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1,
will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to
any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the
injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where
EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our
legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network
stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not
available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant
network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas
that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring
in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no local
station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring localities
that are considered ``significantly viewed'' by the Federal
Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations,
could be carried.
This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement
provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally
providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act
therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and
requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright
office to cover any future violations.
This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of
broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it
serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and
the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying
for these services.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 4067

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 ``Satellite Consumer
Protection Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: SECONDARY
TRANSMISSIONS OF DISTANT NETWORK SIGNALS FOR
PRIVATE HOME VIEWING BY CERTAIN SATELLITE
CARRIERS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 119 the following:

``Sec. 119A. Limitations on exclusive rights: secondary
transmissions of distant network signals for private home
viewing by certain satellite carriers

``(a) Statutory License Granted.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any injunction issued
under section 119(a)(7)(B), a satellite carrier found to have
engaged in a pattern or practice of violations pursuant to
section 119(a)(7)(B) is granted a statutory license to
provide a secondary transmission of a performance or display
of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a
network station in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
``(2) Significantly viewed signals.--Under the statutory
license granted by paragraph (1), a satellite carrier may
provide a secondary transmission of a primary transmission
made by a network station as provided in paragraph (2)(C) or
(3) of section 119(a).
``(3) Distant signals.--
``(A) In general.--Under the statutory license granted by
paragraph (1), a satellite carrier may provide a secondary
transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied
in a primary transmission made by a network station, subject
to the limitations of subparagraphs (B) and (C), of not more
than 1 network station in a single day for each television
network.
``(B) Non-local-into-local markets.--A satellite carrier
may provide a secondary transmission under subparagraph (A)
in a local market (as defined in section 122(j)) in which a
satellite carrier does not currently provide, and has not
ever provided, a transmission pursuant to a statutory license
under section 122, if the satellite carrier--
``(i) complies with the terms and conditions for a
statutory license under section 119; and
``(ii) certifies to the Copyright Office within 30 days
after the date of enactment of the Satellite Consumer
Protection Act of 2006, or before initiating service to a
subscriber under this section, whichever is later, that all
subscribers receiving secondary transmissions pursuant to a
statutory license under this section in that local market
reside in unserved households, as determined under section
119(a)(2)(B)(ii); and

[[Page S11071]]

``(iii) deposits, in addition to the deposits required by
section 119(b)(1), a duplicate payment with the Register of
Copyrights in the same amount for each network station in the
local market affiliated with the same network as the network
station being imported.
``(C) Short markets.--In a local market (as defined in
section 122(j)) in which a network station (as defined in
section 119(d)) affiliated with the ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox
television network is not licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission, a satellite carrier may provide
secondary transmission under subparagraph (A) of the primary
signals of a network station affiliated with that network, if
the satellite carrier--
``(i) complies with the terms and conditions for a
statutory license under section 119; and
``(ii) certifies to the Copyright Office within 30 days
after the date of enactment of the Satellite Consumer
Protection Act of 2006, or before initiating service to a
subscriber under this section, whichever is later, that all
subscribers receiving secondary transmissions pursuant to a
statutory license under this section in that local market
reside in unserved households, as determined under section
119(a)(2)(B)(ii).
``(D) Short market exception.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), a
satellite carrier may not provide secondary transmission of
the primary signals of a network station under that
subparagraph if secondary transmission of those signals could
be provided under paragraph (2).
``(ii) Discontinuance of secondary transmission when
primary signal becomes available.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (C), a satellite carrier that has been providing
secondary transmission of the primary signals of a network
station under subparagraph (C) in a local market may not
provide such secondary transmission in that local market more
than 30 days after the date on which a network station
affiliated with the same network begins to broadcast or
rebroadcast the basic programming service of that network in
that local market and could be carried pursuant to a license
under section 122.
``(b) Distribution of Duplicate Deposit Amounts.--The
Copyright Royalty Judges shall authorize the Librarian of
Congress to distribute semiannually amounts received by the
Register of Copyrights as deposits under subsection
(a)(3)(B)(iii), after deducting the reasonable costs incurred
by the Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Judges
under this section, in accordance with a process that the
Copyright Royalty Judges may prescribe by regulation, to a
network station (as defined in section 119(d)(2)) affiliated
with the network whose signals are being carried under this
section to a community within the local market (as defined in
section 122(j)) in which such signals are being provided
under this section.
``(c) Statutory Damages.--
``(1) In general.--The violation by a satellite carrier of
subsection (a) is actionable as an act of infringement under
section 501 and is subject to statutory damages equal to $100
per month multiplied by the number of subscribers with
respect to which the violation was committed for each month
during which the violation was committed (treating each month
of a continuing violation as a separate violation).
``(2) Petition.--A petition for statutory damages may be
made to the Copyright Royalty Judges, pursuant to such rules
as may be prescribed by the Copyright Royalty Judges by
regulation. In any proceeding under this section, the
satellite carrier shall have the burden of proving that its
secondary transmission of a primary transmission by a network
station is to a subscriber who is eligible to receive the
secondary transmission under this section.
``(3) Escrow.--As a condition of using the statutory
license under subsection (a), a satellite carrier must
deposit the sum of $20,000,000 in escrow with the Copyright
Office. The Copyright Office shall deposit the escrow funds
in an account in the Treasury of the United States, in such
manner as the Secretary of the Treasury directs, and invested
in interest-bearing securities of the United States with any
interest from such investment to be credited to the account.
The Copyright Royalty Judges shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to determine liability for and entitlement to
the statutory damages owed to the petitioning party in
accordance with a process to be prescribed by regulation and
they shall authorize the Librarian of Congress to distribute
funds from the escrow account to satisfy this determination.
After all petitions under this section against a satellite
carrier have been resolved, any amount remaining in the
satellite carrier's escrow account after February 17, 2009,
after deducting the reasonable costs incurred by the
Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Judges under this
section, shall be returned to the satellite carrier.
``(4) Judicial review.--A satellite carrier may seek
judicial review of all determinations of the Copyright
Royalty Judges on a consolidated basis in a single petition
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days after the later
of--
``(A) February 17, 2009; or
``(B) the date on which all amounts in the escrow account
have been distributed or returned.
``(d) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after February
17, 2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 119 the following:

``119A. Limitations on exclusive rights: secondary transmissions of
distant network signals for private home viewing by
certain satellite carriers''.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my
colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite
Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senators Byrd,
Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign are original
cosponsors.
I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This
bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that
Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman
Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested
parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for
all of his hard work on this issue.
We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through
no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals
from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a
nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television
broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law
and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my
constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability
of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West
Virginians, cable television is not available.
We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill
immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption
to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not
have the ability to get local television stations in their area to
continue to receive distant signals.
Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.

____________________