[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S283-S300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lautenberg, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 206. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal 
the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that protects the retirement 
benefits earned by public employees and eliminates barriers which 
discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service. This 
bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the 
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision--which 
unfairly reduce the retirement benefits earned by public employees such 
as teachers, police officers, and firefighters.
  The Government Pension Offset reduces a public employee's Social 
Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds 
of his or her public pension.
  Take the case of a widowed, retired police officer who receives a 
public pension of $600 per month. His job in the local police 
department was not covered by Social Security, yet his wife's private-
sector employment was. An amount equal to two-thirds of his public 
pension, or $400 each month, would be cut from his Social Security 
survivor benefits. If this individual is eligible for $500 in survivor 
benefits, the Government Pension Offset provision would reduce his 
monthly benefits to $100.
  In most cases, the Government Pension Offset eliminates the spousal 
benefit for which an individual qualifies. In fact, 9 out of 10 public 
employees affected by the Government Pension Offset lose their entire 
spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes 
for many years.
  The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits 
by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and 
also receive a public pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.
  While the reforms that led to the creation of the Government Pension 
Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision were meant to prevent public 
employees from being unduly enriched, the

[[Page S284]]

practical effect is that those providing critical public services are 
unjustly penalized.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension 
Offset provision alone reduces earned benefits for more than 300,000 
Americans each year, by upwards of $3,600. In some cases, for those 
living on fixed incomes, this represents the difference between a 
comfortable retirement and poverty.
  Nearly one million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as 
teachers and other school district employees, are unfairly held to a 
different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.

  Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal 
to 90 percent of their first $656 in average monthly career earnings. 
However, under the Windfall Elimination Provision, retired public 
employees are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $656 in 
career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $300 per month.
  This unfair reduction in retirement benefits is inequitable. The 
Social Security Fairness Act will allow government pensioners the 
chance to receive the same 90 percent of their benefits to which 
nongovernment pension recipients are entitled.
  We must do more to encourage people to pursue careers in public 
service. Unfortunately, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall 
Elimination Provision make it more difficult to recruit teachers, 
police officers, and fire fighters; and, it does so at a time when we 
should be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to 
these careers.
  California's police force needs to add more than 10,000 new officers 
by 2014--a growth of nearly 15 percent--while hiring more than 15,000 
additional officers to replace those who leave the force.
  It is estimated that public schools will need to hire between 2.2 
million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009 because of 
record enrollments. The projected retirements of thousands of veteran 
teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate 
hiring additional teachers.
  California currently has more than 300,000 teachers but will need to 
double this number by 2010, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up 
with student enrollment levels.
  Most importantly, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall 
Elimination Provision hinder efforts to recruit new math and science 
teachers from the private sector. As our world becomes increasingly 
interconnected, it is imperative that our school children receive the 
finest math and science education to ensure our Nation's future 
competitiveness in the global economy.
  It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to 
encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, 
while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are discouraged because 
they are clearly told that their Social Security retirement benefits 
will be significantly reduced.
  Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of these 20 year old 
provisions, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the 
unfair reduction of benefits that essentially sends the message that if 
you do enter public service, your family will suffer and will be unable 
to receive the full retirement benefits to which they would otherwise 
be entitled.
  I understand that we are facing deficits and repealing the Government 
Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision will be costly.
  I am open to considering all options that move us toward our goal of 
removing this inequity by allowing individuals to keep the Social 
Security benefits to which they are entitled while promoting public 
sector employment.
  We should respect, not penalize, our public service employees. I hope 
that my colleagues will join me in sending this long overdue message to 
our Nation's public servants, that we value their contributions and 
support giving all Americans the retirement benefits they have earned 
and deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 206

       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 ``Social Security Fairness Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and 
     (q)'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
       (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and (q)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (q)''.
       (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5), 
     subsection (q),'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
       (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5), 
     subsection (q)'' and inserting ``subsection (q)''.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 415) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7);
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) 
     of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended 
     by striking ``section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)'' 
     in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and inserting ``paragraph (5) 
     or (6) of section 215(f)''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the 
     Social Security Act for months after December 2007. 
     Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, 
     the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust primary 
     insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take into 
     account the amendments made by section 3.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security 
Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the 
windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset 
(GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many 
public employees when they retire.
  Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are 
eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not 
covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security 
benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their 
spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social 
Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly 
penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time 
comes for them to retire.
  These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just 
for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, 
firefighters and other public employees as well. Given their important 
responsibilities, it is unfair to penalize them when it comes to their 
Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have 
all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their 
employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to 
collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwis'e 
would be entitled.
  While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in 
virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, 
including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and 
education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, 
are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP.
  Almost one million retired government workers across the country have 
already been adversely affected by these provisions. Many more stand to 
be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should 
be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, 
this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult 
for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the 
teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who 
are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.

[[Page S285]]

  The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social 
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who 
receive a government pension from work not covered under Social 
Security, such as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While 
private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 
percent of their first $656 average monthly career earnings, government 
pensioners checks are based on 40 percent--a harsh penalty of more than 
$300 per month.
  The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor 
benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her 
public pension. It is estimated that 9 out of 10 public employees 
affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though 
their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.
  What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those 
who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those 
affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 
200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that 
can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.
  Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough 
challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their 
lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying 
about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked 
with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they 
teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial 
security in retirement.
  I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. 
Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she 
taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is 
living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in 
education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's 
Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO 
would double her current retirement income.
  These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave 
their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher 
from Otisfield, ME, wrote:

       ``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly 
     in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the 
     current pool of educators near retirement in the next few 
     years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard 
     hours are not great selling points to young students when 
     selecting a career.
       I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found 
     out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former 
     life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in 
     Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each 
     year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that 
     because of my many years of maximum Social Security 
     contributions, I would still have a livable retirement 
     `wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an 
     educator in your State.''

  In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee 
hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on 
public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from Julia 
Worcester of Columbia, ME--who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the 
Committee about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and 
as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had 
on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 
years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 
49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a 
teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 
15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the 
Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not 
receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full 
penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just 
$171 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard 
and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After 
paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in 
total pension income.
  After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute 
teaching just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am 
therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this 
legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN:
  S. 207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
taxpayers to designate part or all of any income tax refund to support 
reservists and National Guard members; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
assist the families of our reservists and National Guard members. With 
our reservists and National Guard members bravely answering our 
country's call to service, we must do all we can to meet the calls of 
help from those families left behind who are struggling financially as 
a result of their loved ones' wartime service.
  All too often, the families of reservists and National Guard members 
must contend not only with the physical absence of a loved one but also 
with the loss of income that makes paying house, car, medical and other 
bills too great of a burden to bear without help. According to the 
latest available statistics, some 55 percent of married Guard members 
and reservists have experienced a loss in income, with nearly 50 
percent experiencing a loss of $1,000 in pay per month and 15 percent 
experiencing a loss of $30,000 or more in pay a year. With our Guard 
and reservists putting their lives on the line, they should not also 
have to put their families' financial lives on the line due to their 
service.
  In an effort to provide relief to these families, I am introducing 
today the Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members 
Act that would bolster the financial assistance available to these 
families. More specifically, the Voluntary Support for Reservists and 
National Guard Members Act would provide taxpayers the option of 
contributing part of their tax refund to the Reserve Income Replacement 
Program which provides financial assistance to those families who have 
experienced an income loss due to a call-up to active duty. In 2005, 
the IRS issued 106 million refunds that totaled $227 billion with the 
average refund coming in at $2,141.36. Even a small percentage of this 
amount could make a significant difference in the lives of these 
reservist and National Guard families.
  While we can do little to ease the emotional burden experienced by 
families regarding the service of their loved ones, we can at least try 
to give them some peace of mind when it comes to their day-to-day 
finances. These families already have made a great sacrifice to the 
nation, and they should not also have to sacrifice their financial 
well-being due to their loved ones' service. Beyond our gratitude, care 
packages and gifts, we can thank our troops for their service by 
helping to meet the everyday needs of their families who are facing 
financial hardships. My bill would provide Americans a convenient way 
to thank our troops by contributing a portion of their tax refunds to 
give much-needed help to the loved ones of our reservists and National 
Guard members .
  I ask unanimous consent that my legislation, the Voluntary Support 
for Reservists and National Guard Members Act, and the accompanying 
remarks be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 207

       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 ``Voluntary Support for 
     Reservists and National Guard Members Act''.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS TO SUPPORT RESERVISTS AND 
                   NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS.

       (a) Designation.--Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new part:

 ``PART IX--DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS TO RESERVE INCOME REPLACEMENT 
                                PROGRAM

``Sec. 6097. Designation

     ``SEC. 6097. DESIGNATION.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, with 
     respect to each taxpayer's return for the taxable year of the 
     tax imposed by chapter 1, such taxpayer may designate

[[Page S286]]

     that a specified portion (not less than $1) of any 
     overpayment of tax for such taxable year be paid over to the 
     Reserve Income Replacement Program (RIRP) under section 910 
     of title 37, United States Code.
       ``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--A designation under 
     subsection (a) may be made with respect to any taxable year 
     only at the time of filing the return of the tax imposed by 
     chapter 1 for such taxable year. Such designation shall be 
     made in such manner as the Secretary prescribes by 
     regulations except that such designation shall be made either 
     on the first page of the return or on the page bearing the 
     taxpayer's signature.
       ``(c) Overpayments Treated as Refunded.--For purposes of 
     this title, any portion of an overpayment of tax designated 
     under subsection (a) shall be treated as--
       ``(1) being refunded to the taxpayer as of the last date 
     prescribed for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
     (determined without regard to extensions) or, if later, the 
     date the return is filed, and
       ``(2) a contribution made by such taxpayer on such date to 
     the United States.''.
       (b) Transfers to Reserve Income Replacement Program.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall, from time to time, transfer 
     to the Reserve Income Replacement Program (RIRP) under 
     section 910 of title 37, United States Code, the amounts 
     designated under section 6097 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, under regulations jointly prescribed by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and the Secretary of Defense.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter 
     A of chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

 ``Part IX. Designation of Overpayments to Reserve Income Replacement 
                               Program''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Lugar, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Vitter, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bennett, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 211. A bill to facilitate nationwide availability of 2-2-1 
telephone service for information and referral on human services, 
volunteer services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Calling 
for 2-1-1 Act. I'm thrilled to be a part of the new Democratic Congress 
as we move to pass the kind of bipartisan legislation I'm talking about 
today--a bill that could make an invaluable difference in the lives of 
citizens in New York and the country.
  I'd first like to thank my colleague Senator Dole for joining me in 
this effort. Because of her long history with the Red Cross, the 
Senator understands the importance of 2-1-1, and I am so pleased to be 
working with her again in this new Congress to champion this important 
cause.
  Every hour of every day, someone in the United States needs essential 
services--from finding an after-school program to securing adequate 
care for an aging parent. Faced with a dramatic increase in the number 
of agencies and help-lines, people often don't know where to turn. In 
many cases, people end up going without necessary services because they 
do not know where to start. The 2-1-1 system is a user-friendly social-
services network, providing an easy-to-remember and universally 
available phone number that links individuals and families in need to 
the appropriate nonprofit and government agencies. 2-1-1 helps people 
find and give help by providing information on job training, schools, 
volunteer opportunities, elder care housing, and countless other 
community needs.
  However, the importance of this system extends far beyond the day to 
day needs of our citizens. The need for effective communication was 
made crystal clear in the immediate aftermath of the devastation of 
September 11, when most people did not know where to turn for 
information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who knew 
about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut, and it was 
critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting 
frightened children with their parents, providing information on 
terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated 
efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 
2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information 
on bioterrorism for those concerned about future attacks.
  As time went by, many people needed help getting back on their feet. 
More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families 
applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or 
mortgage. 90,000 people developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress 
disorder or clinical depression within eight weeks of the attacks. 
Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. And 2-1-1 
was there to help.
  The needs were great and the people of America rose to the challenge. 
But our infrastructure struggled to keep up with this outpouring of 
support. In fact, a Brookings Institution and Urban Institute study of 
the aftermath of September 11 found that many dislocated workers 
struggled to obtain available assistance. The devastation of natural 
disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita further demonstrated the need to 
connect people to services quickly in a time of crisis. That's what 2-
1-1 is all about: providing a single, efficient, coordinated way for 
people who need help to connect with those who can provide it.
  There is broad, bi-partisan support for this legislation--because the 
need for it has been proven. Unfortunately, in many States, limited 
resources have slowed the process of connecting communities with this 
vital service. Without adequate Federal support, 2-1-1 will not reach a 
nationwide population for decades. The University of Texas developed a 
national cost-benefit analysis that found there would be a savings to 
society of nearly $1.1 billion over ten years if 2-1-1 were operational 
nationwide. The Federal Government, States, counties, businesses and 
citizens all stand to benefit from a nationwide 2-1-1 service.
  As this new Congress moves in a positive direction for America, we 
must enact legislation that best protects and prepares ourselves for 
the future. All fifty States deserve to be equipped with the proper 
communication to respond effectively in an emergency situation.
  Every single American should have a number they can call to cut 
through the chaos of an emergency. That number is 2-1-1. It's time to 
make our citizens and our country safer by making this resource 
available nationwide.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 215 A bill to amend the communications act of 1934 to ensure net 
neutrality: to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the issue of Internet freedom, which is 
also known as net neutrality, is one that is very important to me. I 
have long fought in Congress against media concentration, to prevent 
the consolidation of control over what Americans see, read and hear in 
the media. Americans have recognized how important this issue is and 
millions spoke out when the FCC sought to loosen the ownership rules to 
allow for more consolidation.
  But now, Americans face an equally great threat to the democratic 
vehicle of the Internet. The Internet, which we have always taken for 
granted as an open and free engine for economic and creative growth, is 
now also at risk, and this must also become a front burner issue for 
consumers and businesses.
  The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by 
enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on 
a level playing field for consumers' business. The marketplace picked 
winners and losers, and not some central gatekeeper. Our economy, small 
businesses and consumers benefited tremendously from that dynamic 
marketplace.
  But now we face a situation where the FCC has removed 
nondiscrimination rules that applied to Internet providers for years, 
and that enabled the Internet to flourish, and consumers and innovation 
to thrive.
  The FCC removed these rules, and broadband operators soon thereafter 
announced their interest in acting in discriminatory ways, planning to 
create tiers on the Internet that could restrict content providers' 
access to the

[[Page S287]]

Internet unless they pay extra for faster speeds or better service. 
Under their plan, the Internet would become a new world where those 
content providers who can afford to pay special fees would have better 
access to consumers.
  On November 7, 2005 then-SBC, now AT&T, CEO Ed Whitacre was quoted in 
Business Week as saying: ``They don't have any fiber out there. They 
don't have any wires. They don't have anything . . . They use my lines 
for free--and that's bull. For a Google or a Yahoo! or a Vonage or 
anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''
  In another article a senior executive from Verizon was quoted as 
saying: ``(Google) is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any 
rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers.''
  Now perhaps if we had a competitive broadband market we would not 
need to be concerned about the discriminatory intentions of some 
providers. In a market with many competitors, there is a reasonable 
chance that market forces would discipline bad behavior.
  But this is not the case today: FCC statistics on broadband show that 
the local cable and telephone companies have a 98 percent share of the 
national broadband residential access market.
  For those that say, the market will take care of competition, and 
ensure that those that own the broadband networks won't discriminate, 
that cannot be so when at best consumers have a choice of two 
providers.
  Furthermore, these broadband operators have their own content and 
services, video, VOIP, media content. They have an incentive to favor 
their own services and to act in an anti-competitive fashion. Last year 
Cablevision's Tom Rutledge talking about Vonage made the following 
statement: ``So, anyone who buys Vonage on our network using our data 
service doesn't really know what they are doing . . . Our service is 
better, its quality of service. We actually prioritize the bits so that 
the voice product is a better product.''
  With these developments, consumers' ability to use content, services 
and applications could now be subject to decisions made by their 
broadband providers. The broadband operator will become a gatekeeper, 
capable of deciding who can get through to a consumer, who can get 
special deals, faster speeds, better access to the consumer.
  This fundamentally changes the way the Internet has operated and 
threaten to derail the democratic nature of the Internet. American 
consumers and businesses will be worse off for it.
  It is for this reason that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing the 
Internet Freedom Preservation Act, with the support of Internet 
businesses large and small, consumer groups, labor and education 
groups, religious organizations, and many others.
  Last year we faced an uphill battle: broadband providers were 
spending millions of dollars on print and television advertisements and 
efforts to convince lawmakers to let them act as gatekeepers on the 
Internet, removing the power from the consumers that drive Internet 
choice today.
  We still face the vast resources of broadband operators that seek to 
authorize their ability to control content on the Internet. But more 
importantly on the side of our legislation we have the grass roots 
support for and the substantive merits of Internet freedom.
  In addition, we have proof that it can be done- nondiscrimination 
rules and Internet freedom can co-exist with profitable business plans. 
Recently AT&T accepted as a condition of its merger with BellSouth a 
net neutrality provision written by the FCC. Wall Street immediately 
reported that it expected no impact on AT&T's bottom line by the 
acceptance of these conditions, and AT&T is forging ahead, while at the 
same time having committed to protecting Internet freedom.
  It is clear that an open and neutral Internet can co-exist and thrive 
along with competitive and profitable business models.
  But legislation is still critical. The merger conditions are an 
important step but are not enough. We must restore Internet freedom 
mandates to the entire broadband industry and make them permanent, 
ensuring that consumers can continue to receive the benefits of an open 
and vibrant Internet not only in the short term from AT&T, but from any 
broadband provider in the longer term.
  Today we introduce the Internet Freedom Preservation Act to ensure 
that the Internet remains a platform that spawns innovation and 
economic development for generations to come. We look forward to 
working with our colleagues in Congress to enact these important 
measures into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 215

       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 ``Internet Freedom 
     Preservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

       Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

       ``(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers.--With respect to 
     any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband 
     service provider shall--
       ``(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, 
     impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a 
     broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or 
     offer any lawful content, application, or service made 
     available via the Internet;
       ``(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or 
     using any device to the network of such broadband service 
     provider, only if such device does not physically damage or 
     substantially degrade the use of such network by other 
     subscribers;
       ``(3) provide and make available to each user information 
     about such user's access to the Internet, and the speed, 
     nature, and limitations of such user's broadband service;
       ``(4) enable any content, application, or service made 
     available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted 
     on a basis that--
       ``(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with 
     respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;
       ``(B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality 
     of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service 
     provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or 
     services made available via the public Internet into the 
     network of such broadband service provider; and
       ``(C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of 
     content, applications, or services made available via the 
     Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;
       ``(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services 
     accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet 
     within the network of such broadband service provider based 
     on the type of content, applications, or services and the 
     level of service purchased by the user, without charge for 
     such prioritization; and
       ``(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, 
     or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this 
     section.
       ``(b) Certain Management and Business-Related Practices.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a 
     broadband service provider from engaging in any activity, 
     provided that such activity is not inconsistent with the 
     requirements of subsection (a), including--
       ``(1) protecting the security of a user's computer on the 
     network of such broadband service provider, or managing such 
     network in a manner that does not distinguish based on the 
     source or ownership of content, application, or service;
       ``(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that 
     does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of 
     content, application, or service, at different prices based 
     on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data 
     flow over a user's connection;
       ``(3) offering consumer protection services (including 
     parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software 
     for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic 
     messages, or other similar capabilities), if each user is 
     provided clear and accurate advance notice of the ability of 
     such user to refuse or disable individually provided consumer 
     protection capabilities;
       ``(4) handling breaches of the terms of service offered by 
     such broadband service provider by a subscriber, provided 
     that such terms of service are not inconsistent with the 
     requirements of subsection (a); or
       ``(5) where otherwise required by law, to prevent any 
     violation of Federal or State law.
       ``(c) Exception.--Nothing in this section shall apply to 
     any service regulated under title VI, regardless of the 
     physical transmission facilities used to provide or transmit 
     such service.
       ``(d) Stand-Alone Broadband Service.--A broadband service 
     provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on 
     the purchase of any broadband service offered by such 
     broadband service provider, to purchase any cable service, 
     telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.
       ``(e) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, 
     the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this 
     section that--

[[Page S288]]

       ``(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with 
     the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and
       ``(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory 
     review procedures consistent with the objectives of this 
     section, including the resolution of any complaint described 
     in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint 
     was filed, except for good cause shown.
       ``(f) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall enforce compliance 
     with this section under title V, except that--
       ``(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under 
     section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives 
     the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 
     503(b)(4); and
       ``(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.
       ``(2) Special orders.--In addition to any other remedy 
     provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any 
     appropriate order, including an order directing a broadband 
     service provider--
       ``(A) to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation 
     of this section or the regulations hereunder; or
       ``(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Affiliated.--The term `affiliated' includes--
       ``(A) a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or 
     controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common 
     ownership or control with, another person; or
       ``(B) a person that has a contract or other arrangement 
     with a content, applications, or service provider relating to 
     access to or distribution of such content, applications, or 
     service.
       ``(2) Broadband service.--The term `broadband service' 
     means a 2-way transmission that--
       ``(A) connects to the Internet regardless of the physical 
     transmission facilities used; and
       ``(B) transmits information at an average rate of at least 
     200 kilobits per second in at least 1 direction.
       ``(3) Broadband service provider.--The term `broadband 
     service provider' means a person or entity that controls, 
     operates, or resells and controls any facility used to 
     provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for 
     a fee or for free.
       ``(4) IP-enabled voice service.--The term `IP-enabled voice 
     service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice 
     communications offered to the public, or such classes of 
     users as to be effectively available to the public, 
     transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP 
     protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of 
     a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection 
     capability such that service can originate traffic to, and 
     terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network
       ``(5) User.--The term `user' means any residential or 
     business subscriber who, by way of a broadband service, takes 
     and utilizes Internet services, whether provided for a fee, 
     in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.''.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON DELIVERY OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, AND 
                   SERVICES.

       Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall transmit a report to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives on the--
       (1) ability of providers of content, applications, or 
     services to transmit and send such information into and over 
     broadband networks;
       (2) ability of competing providers of transmission 
     capability to transmit and send such information into and 
     over broadband networks;
       (3) price, terms, and conditions for transmitting and 
     sending such information into and over broadband networks;
       (4) number of entities that transmit and send information 
     into and over broadband networks; and
       (5) state of competition among those entities that transmit 
     and send information into and over broadband networks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 216. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land in 
the Santa Fe National Forest and certain non-Federal land in the Pecos 
National Historical Park in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Mr. 
Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 
2007''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal 
Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National 
Historical Park in my State of New Mexico.
  Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a 
private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the 
transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National 
Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the 
Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is 
surrounded by private lands on three sides.
  The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and 
archaeological resources. The Park preserves the ruins of the great 
Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two 
Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.
  The Glorieta unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 
1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended 
the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This unit will 
directly benefit from the land exchange.
  Similar bills passed the Senate in the 106th, 108th, and 109th 
Congresses, and I hope it finally will be enacted this Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have 
introduced today be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 216

       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 ``Pecos National Historical 
     Park Land Exchange Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     approximately 160 acres of Federal land within the Santa Fe 
     National Forest in the State, as depicted on the map.
       (2) Landowner.--The term ``landowner'' means the 1 or more 
     owners of the non-Federal land.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Land Exchange for Pecos National Historical 
     Park'', numbered 430/80,054, dated November 19, 1999, and 
     revised September 18, 2000.
       (4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the approximately 154 acres of non-Federal land in the Park, 
     as depicted on the map.
       (5) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Pecos National 
     Historical Park in the State.
       (6) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     acting jointly.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New 
     Mexico.

     SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) In General.--On conveyance by the landowner to the 
     Secretary of the Interior of the non-Federal land, title to 
     which is acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture shall, subject to the 
     conditions of this Act, convey to the landowner the Federal 
     land; and
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior shall, subject to the 
     conditions of this Act, grant to the landowner the easement 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b) Easement.--
       (1) In general.--The easement referred to in subsection 
     (a)(2) is an easement (including an easement for service 
     access) for water pipelines to 2 well sites located in the 
     Park, as generally depicted on the map.
       (2) Route.--The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation 
     with the landowner, shall determine the appropriate route of 
     the easement through the Park.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--The easement shall include such 
     terms and conditions relating to the use of, and access to, 
     the well sites and pipeline, as the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in consultation with the landowner, determines to 
     be appropriate.
       (4) Applicable law.--The easement shall be established, 
     operated, and maintained in compliance with applicable 
     Federal law.
       (c) Valuation, Appraisals, and Equalization.--
       (1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and non-
     Federal land--
       (A) shall be equal, as determined by appraisals conducted 
     in accordance with paragraph (2); or
       (B) if the value is not equal, shall be equalized in 
     accordance with paragraph (3).
       (2) Appraisals.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal land and non-Federal land 
     shall be appraised by an independent appraiser selected by 
     the Secretaries.
       (B) Requirements.--An appraisal conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in accordance with--
       (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition; and
       (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (C) Approval.--The appraisals conducted under this 
     paragraph shall be submitted to the Secretaries for approval.
       (3) Equalization of values.--
       (A) In general.--If the values of the non-Federal land and 
     the Federal land are not equal, the values may be equalized 
     by--
       (i) the Secretary of the Interior making a cash 
     equalization payment to the landowner;

[[Page S289]]

       (ii) the landowner making a cash equalization payment to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture; or
       (iii) reducing the acreage of the non-Federal land or the 
     Federal land, as appropriate.
       (B) Cash equalization payments.--Any amounts received by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture as a cash equalization payment 
     under section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)) shall--
       (i) be deposited in the fund established by Public Law 90-
     171 (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a); 
     and
       (ii) be available for expenditure, without further 
     appropriation, for the acquisition of land and interests in 
     land in the State.
       (d) Costs.--Before the completion of the exchange under 
     this section, the Secretaries and the landowner shall enter 
     into an agreement that allocates the costs of the exchange 
     among the Secretaries and the landowner.
       (e) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, the exchange of land and interests in land under this 
     Act shall be in accordance with--
       (1) section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716); and
       (2) other applicable laws, including the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretaries may 
     require, in addition to any requirements under this Act, such 
     terms and conditions relating to the exchange of Federal land 
     and non-Federal land and the granting of easements under this 
     Act as the Secretaries determine to be appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (g) Completion of the Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The exchange of Federal land and non-
     Federal land shall be completed not later than 180 days after 
     the later of--
       (A) the date on which the requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     have been met;
       (B) the date on which the Secretary of the Interior 
     approves the appraisals under subsection (c)(2)(C); or
       (C) the date on which the Secretaries and the landowner 
     agree on the costs of the exchange and any other terms and 
     conditions of the exchange under this section.
       (2) Notice.--The Secretaries shall submit to the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives notice 
     of the completion of the exchange of Federal land and non-
     Federal land under this Act.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     administer the non-Federal land acquired under this Act in 
     accordance with the laws generally applicable to units of the 
     National Park System, including the Act of August 25, 1916 
     (commonly known as the ``National Park Service Organic Act'') 
     (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
       (b) Maps.--
       (1) In general.--The map shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     Secretaries.
       (2) Transmittal of revised map to congress.--Not later than 
     180 days after completion of the exchange, the Secretaries 
     shall transmit to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the 
     House of Representatives a revised map that depicts--
       (A) the Federal land and non-Federal land exchanged under 
     this Act; and
       (B) the easement described in section 3(b).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN:
  S. 217. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to 
initiate a section 301 investigation into abuses by the Australian 
Wheat Board with respect to the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 217

       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 ``Australian Wheat Board 
     Accountability Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the United States Trade Representative shall 
     initiate an investigation in accordance with title III of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411 et seq.) to determine if 
     actions by the Australian Wheat Board with respect to the 
     Board's abuse of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme 
     constitutes an act, policy, or practice and justifies taking 
     action described in section 301(a)(1) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2411(a)(1)).
       (b) Act, Policy, or Practice.--For purposes of this Act, 
     any economic damage suffered by United States wheat farmers 
     as a result of the practices of the Australian Wheat Board 
     related to the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme during 
     the period 1999 to 2003 shall be deemed to be an act, policy, 
     or practice under section 301(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974.

     SEC. 3. ACTIONS.

       (a) Negotiated Settlement.--
       (1) In general.--If as a result of the investigation 
     required by section 2 an affirmative determination is made 
     that the actions of the Australian Wheat Board have resulted 
     in barriers to United States wheat exports or meet the 
     requirements for mandatory action described in section 
     301(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411(a)(1)), 
     the United States Trade Representative shall seek a 
     negotiated settlement with the Government of Australia for 
     compensation under section 301(c)(1)(D) of such Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2411(c)(1)(D)).
       (2) Amount of compensation.--In seeking a settlement under 
     paragraph (1), the Trade Representative shall seek 
     compensation in an amount equal to the economic damages 
     suffered by United States wheat farmers as a result of the 
     actions of the Australian Wheat Board with respect to the 
     Board's abuse of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme.
       (b) Imposition of Duties.--
       (1) In general.--If the United States Trade Representative 
     fails to reach a settlement with the Government of Australia 
     on or before the date that is 6 months after the date that 
     the United States Trade Representative begins the 
     negotiations described in subsection (a), the United States 
     Trade Representative shall establish a retaliation list (as 
     described in section 306(b)(2)(E) of the Trade Act of 1974; 
     19 U.S.C. 2416(b)(2)(E)) and shall impose a rate of duty of 
     100 percent ad valorem on articles on that list that are 
     imported directly or indirectly from Australia. The duties 
     shall be imposed in a manner consistent with section 
     301(a)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411(a)(3)).
       (2) Duration of additional duties.--The duties imposed 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain in effect until the 
     date that the United States Trade Representative certifies to 
     Congress that the imposition of such duties is no longer 
     appropriate because adequate compensation has been obtained 
     and the Australian Wheat Board is no longer engaging in the 
     acts, policies, or practices that were the basis for the 
     imposition of the duties.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Obama, and Mr. 
        Rockefeller):
  S. 218. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the income threshold used to calculate the refundable portion of the 
child tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today Congress is confronted with how to 
best provide tax relief to American families earning slightly more than 
the minimum wage. We can do that by expanding the availability of the 
child tax credit to more working families.
  In 2001, I pushed to make the child tax credit refundable for workers 
making around the minimum wage. As enacted in 2001, a portion of a 
taxpayer's child tax credit would be refundable--up to 10 percent of 
earnings above $10,000.
  In 2004, Congress passed the Working Families Tax Relief of 2004, 
which increased from 10 percent to 15 percent the portion of the child 
tax credit that is refundable. Although the legislation increased the 
amount of the refundable child credit, it failed to increase the number 
of families eligible for the benefit. The consequences are serious for 
low-income Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck. It means that tens of 
thousands of low-income families will be completely ineligible for a 
credit they should receive.
  This year, because the income threshold is indexed, only taxpayers 
earning over $11,750 are eligible to receive the refundable portion of 
the child tax credit. Low-income families earning less than $11,750 are 
shut out of the child tax credit completely.
  For example, a single mother who earns the current minimum wage and 
works a 40 hour week, for all 52 weeks of the year, fails to qualify 
for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Since the mother 
earns $10,700, she is a mere $300 away from qualifying for the credit. 
Worse, if the single mother does not receive a raise the following 
year, it will be even tougher to qualify because the $11,750 she 
originally needed to earn is adjusted for inflation and will increase.
  Today, I am introducing legislation, the Working Family Child 
Assistance Act, with Senators Lincoln, Obama, and Rockefeller that will 
enable more hard-working, low-income families to receive the refundable 
child credit this year. My legislation returns the amount of income a 
family must earn to qualify for the child tax credit to $10,000. 
Moreover, my bill would ``de-index'' the $10,000 threshold for 
inflation, so families failing to get a raise each year would not lose 
benefits.

[[Page S290]]

  Most notably, my bill is identical to the refundable child credit 
proposal the Senate passed in May 2001 as part of its version of that 
year's tax bill. Although I was able to ensure that a refundable child 
credit would be part of the final bill sent to President Bush, 
conferees did index the $10,000 threshold to inflation despite my best 
efforts.
  The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this 
legislation will allow an additional 600,000 families to benefit from 
the refundable child tax credit. The Maine Department of Revenue 
estimates that 16,700 families in Maine alone would benefit from our 
proposal. Two thousand of these Maine families would otherwise be 
completely locked out of the refundable child tax credit under current 
law.
  For example, my legislation provides a $113 child credit to a mom who 
earns $10,750 per year. That's money she could use to buy groceries, 
school books, other family necessities, and even pay rent.
  Our families and our country are better off when government lets 
people keep more of what they earn. Parents deserve their per-child tax 
credit, and my bill rewards families for work.
  I am committed to this issue and have called on President Bush to 
work with Congress so we can help an additional one million children, 
whose parents and guardians struggle every day to take care of them.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to once again 
raise an issue that is near and dear to my heart--an issue that is of 
great importance to working families across this country. In 2001 and 
again in 2003, Senator Snowe and I worked together to ensure that low-
income working families with children receive the benefit of the Child 
Tax Credit. I come here today to again ask my colleagues to help me 
ensure that low-income families aren't forgotten as we discuss tax 
relief in the 110th Congress.
  Unfortunately, although we have made great strides in ensuring that 
the credit is a useful tool for our working families, in its current 
form it isn't working for everyone. We can and should take an important 
additional step to improve it.
  As some of my colleagues may be aware, to be eligible for the 
refundable child tax credit, working families must meet an income 
threshold. If they don't earn enough, then they don't qualify for the 
credit. The problem is that some of our working parents are working 
full-time, every week of the year and yet they still don't earn enough 
to meet the income threshold to qualify for the credit, much less to 
receive a meaningful refund.
  In 2006, the New York Times highlighted a report which shows that 
almost one-third of our children live in families that do not qualify 
for the child tax credit because family earnings are too low. When you 
break the findings down by race, it's even more disheartening--about 
half of all African American children and half of all Latino children 
are left out of the full child tax credit because their family's 
earnings are just too low to qualify.
  It is wrong to provide this credit to some hardworking Americans, 
while leaving others behind. The single, working parent that is 
stocking shelves at your local grocery store is every bit as deserving 
as the teacher, accountant or insurance salesman that qualifies for the 
credit in its current form. We must address this inequity and we must 
ensure that our tax code works for all Americans, especially those 
working parents forced to get by on the minimum wage.
  In response, Senator Snowe and I have proposed a solution that will 
build on our previous efforts to make this credit work for those that 
need it the most. Today, we are reintroducing the Working Child Family 
Assistance Act, legislation which de-indexes the income threshold and 
sets it at a reasonable level so that all working parents, including 
those making the minimum wage, qualify for the credit. This is a 
simple, easy solution to a serious problem.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration 
to correct this inequity and to ensure that those low-income, hard-
working families that need this credit the most do receive its 
benefits.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Child Tax Credit 
and to support S. 218, a bill I've worked on with Senators Snowe and 
Lincoln. Working families should get the tax relief they deserve, and I 
am proud to cosponsor this bill to help realize this aspiration. The 
Child Credit is an important component of our Federal tax code, and S. 
218 is an important step in making the credit more valuable and more 
fair for those who need it most.
  Raising children is expensive and has become even more so in recent 
years. The Child Tax Credit allows middle class families to claim a 
credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. That's a 
big help in covering these rising costs.
  Importantly, the Child Credit also recognizes the particular 
vulnerability low-income families with children. Since the credit is 
refundable to the extent of 15 percent of a taxpayer's earned income in 
excess of $11,300, families earning more than that threshold level of 
income get at least a partial benefit even if they have no Federal 
income tax liability. The benefit may be small for families with low 
incomes, but every penny helps defray the rising costs of being a 
working parent in America today.
  Unfortunately, as currently structured, the Child Credit leaves more 
and more families out of the benefit each year. That's because the 
income threshold for eligibility rises annually at the rate of 
inflation even though family incomes may not rise as fast. That means 
that if you earn the minimum wage, or if your wage is low and you 
didn't get a raise, or if you worked fewer hours than the year before, 
then your tax refund probably shrunk. It may even have disappeared. 
Given that an estimated four and a half million households with 
children experienced this decline last year alone, we must reverse this 
unintended--and unfair--effect.
  In many cases, indexing the parameters of the tax system for 
inflation makes sense because it neutralizes the effects of inflation 
on the tax system. In this case, however, indexing the threshold 
results in an unfair tax increase for low-income, working families 
whose incomes are not keeping up with rising costs. Recent data 
indicates that the typical low-income household actually saw its 
earnings decline during the first few years ofthis decade. At the same 
time, the costs of housing, childcare, and driving to work have 
increased sharply.
  This bill returns the threshold to its original level of $10,000 and 
freezes it, thereby expanding the benefit to include more kids and 
protecting those families from unfair tax increases due to inflation. 
This is an important step in improving the fairness of our tax code and 
providing necessary support to working families.
  In time, I hope we will do more. It is unfair that more than eight 
million children in families with incomes too low to qualify for even a 
partial credit get no benefit at all. These are families whose incomes 
are far below the Federal poverty level and whose children ironically 
have the greatest needs--even as their parents pay an enormous share of 
their incomes in taxes and basic services, such as food, housing, and 
clothing.
  America can do better. In the new Congress, I hope we will tackle the 
broader challenge of ensuring that their parents have jobs that pay 
living wages, a home they can afford, a school district that enables a 
life of opportunity, a community that cares for its children, and the 
faith that hard work and personal commitment payoff. America can do 
this.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill as 
a first step in addressing the broader goal of equal opportunity for 
all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 220. A bill to authorize early repayment of obligations to the 
Bureau of Reclamation within the A & B Irrigation District in the State 
of Idaho; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern 
Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2007. This Act authorizes 
prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations 
to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will 
allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so 
desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who

[[Page S291]]

have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in 
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate 
market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have 
either died or have retired.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary 
bill through the legislative process quickly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 221. A bill amend title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and 
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the Fair 
Contracts for Growers Act of 2007. This bill would simply instill 
fairness into contractual dealings between farmers and processors. It 
ensures that parties to a dispute related to agricultural contracts 
have a true choice of venues.
  I introduce this legislation because I believe that anti-competitive 
activity has become a grave threat to the family farmer. During the 
last Farm Bill debate, I brought this same bill forward, along with 
several others. Despite this policy passing the Senate, remarkably the 
final Farm Bill included no provisions to address concentration.
  So, earlier this year, I announced that I will be putting forward a 
package of bills that will focus on anti-competitive activity in the 
agriculture industry. This bill is the first step of my agriculture 
concentration agenda.
  Today's legislation is one piece of the puzzle to help stop the 
unfair impact that vertical integration is having on the family farmer. 
In the last several years we've seen a tremendous shift in agriculture 
toward contract production. Under many of these contract arrangements, 
large, vertically integrated agribusiness firms have the power to 
dictate the terms of ``take-it-or-leave-it'' production contracts to 
farmers.
  Then, when there is a dispute between the packer and the family 
farmer, and the contract between the two includes an arbitration 
clause, the family farmer has no alternative but to accept arbitration 
to resolve the dispute. These clauses limit farmers' abilities to 
pursue remedies in court, even when violations of Federal or State law 
are at issue. This mandatory arbitration process puts the farmer at a 
see disadvantage. Even in a situation where discrimination or fraud is 
suspected, a farmer's only recourse under such a contract is to submit 
to arbitration. The farmer cannot seek redress in court, even if the 
result is bankruptcy or financial ruin.
  Make no mistake, arbitration is very useful in certain situations. It 
reduces the load on our courts, and can save parties the expense of 
drawn-out litigation. This bill would not rule out arbitration-just 
forced arbitration.
  The Fair Contracts for Growers Act would amend the Packers and 
Stockyards Act to require that any contract arbitration be voluntarily 
agreed upon by both parties to settle disputes at the time a dispute 
arises, not when the contract is signed. This would allow farmers the 
opportunity to choose the best form of dispute resolution and not have 
to submit to the packers. It ensures that a farmer, most often the 
``little guy'' in these dealings, is able to maintain his 
constitutional right to a jury trial. It also gives him a chance to 
compel disclosure of relevant information, held by the company, which 
is necessary for a fair decision.
  During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote 
of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of 
venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. I 
urge my colleagues to join with Senator Feingold and me, along with our 
other cosponsors, in supporting this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Iowa Farmers Union,

                                        Ames, IA, January 3, 2007.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of Iowa 
     Farmers Union, Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN) and 
     the Iowa Chapter of National Farmers Organization to 
     reiterate our strong support for the Fair Contracts for 
     Growers Act, and to thank you for your leadership in 
     introducing this legislation.
       Contract livestock and poultry producers are being forced 
     to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, as part of a take-it-
     or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with large, vertically 
     integrated processing firms. These producers forfeit their 
     basic constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must 
     accept an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely 
     limits their rights and is often prohibitively expensive. 
     These clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving 
     farmers little if any ability to seek justice if they become 
     the victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control over the information needed for growers to argue 
     their case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be 
     available to a grower's attorney through discovery. In an 
     arbitration proceeding, the company is not required to 
     provide access to this information, thus placing the farmer/
     grower at an extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal 
     rights that are waived through arbitration are access to 
     mediation and appeal as well as the right to an explanation 
     of the decision.
       Many assume that arbitration is a less costly way of 
     resolving dispute than going to court, but for the producer, 
     the opposite is usually true. The high cost of arbitration is 
     often a significant barrier to most farmers. The up-front 
     filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the magnitude of 
     the dispute itself, with farmers being required to pay fees 
     in the thousands of dollars just to start the arbitration 
     process.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon. 
     Independent family farmers all over the U.S. will benefit 
     from a law that stops the abuse of arbitration clauses in 
     livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Chris Petersen,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  January 4, 2007.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley, On behalf of the Campaign for 
     Contract Agriculture Reform, I would like to thank you for 
     your leadership in introducing the Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act.
       With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods of 
     agricultural production, farmers are increasingly producing 
     agricultural products under contract with large processors. 
     In many cases, particularly in the livestock and poultry 
     sector, the farmer never actually owns the product they 
     produce, but instead makes large capital investments on their 
     own land to build the facilities necessary to raise animals 
     for an ``integrator.''
       Under such contract arrangements, farmers and growers are 
     often given take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable contracts, 
     with language drafted by the integrator in a manner designed 
     to maximize the company's profits and shift risk to the 
     grower. In many cases, the farmer has little choice but to 
     sign the contract presented to them, or accept bankruptcy. 
     The legal term for such contracts is ``contract of 
     adhesion.'' As contracts of adhesion become more commonplace 
     in agriculture, the abuses that often characterize such 
     contracts are also becoming more commonplace and more 
     egregious.
       One practice that has become common in livestock and 
     poultry production contracts is the use of mandatory 
     arbitration clauses, where growers are forced to sign away 
     their constitutional rights to jury trial upon signing a 
     contract with an integrator, and instead accept a dispute 
     resolution forum that denies their basic legal rights and is 
     too costly for most growers to pursue.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control of the information needed for a grower to argue their 
     case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available 
     to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration 
     proceeding, the company is generally not required to provide 
     access to this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at 
     an extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are 
     waived through arbitration are access to mediation and 
     appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the 
     decision.
       In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less 
     costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for 
     the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of 
     arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers. 
     The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the 
     magnitude of the dispute itself. For example, in one 
     Mississippi case, filing fees for a poultry grower to begin 
     an arbitration proceeding were $11,000. In contrast, filing 
     fees for a civil

[[Page S292]]

     court case are $150 to $250. Lawyer fees in a civil case are 
     often paid on a contingent-fee basis.
       In addition, the potential for mandatory arbitration 
     clauses to be used abusively by a dominant party in a 
     contract has also been recognized by Congress with regard to 
     other sectors of our economy. In 2002, legislation was 
     enacted with broad bipartisan support that prohibits the use 
     of pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts 
     between car dealers and car manufacturers and distributors. 
     The Fair Contract for Growers Act is nearly identical in 
     structure to the ``car dealer'' arbitration bill passed by 
     Congress in 2002.
       Thank you again for introducing the Fair Contracts for 
     Growers Act, to assure that arbitration in livestock and 
     poultry contracts is truly voluntary, after mutual agreement 
     of both parties after a dispute arises. If used, arbitration 
     should be a tool for honest dispute resolution, not a weapon 
     used to limit a farmers' right to seek justice for abusive 
     trade practices.
       I look forward to working with you toward enactment of this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Steven D. Etka

                                 Legislative Coordinator, Campaign
     for Contract Agriculture Reform.
                                  ____



                               National Family Farm Coalition,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2007.
     Senator Charles Grassley,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley; I am writing as president of the 
     National Family Farm Coalition to express our strong support 
     for the Fair Contracts for Growers Act, and to thank you for 
     your leadership in introducing this legislation. As you know, 
     the National Family Farm Coalition provides a voice for 
     grassroots groups on farm, food, trade and rural economic 
     issues to ensure fair prices for family farmers, safe and 
     healthy food, and vibrant, environmentally sound rural 
     communities. Our organization is committed to promoting 
     justice in agriculture, which is stymied by current practices 
     that give farmers unfair and unjust difficulties when they 
     wish to arbitrate a contract dispute.
       Therefore, the Fair Contracts for Growers Act is very 
     timely. With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods 
     of agricultural production, farmers are increasingly 
     producing agricultural products under contract with large 
     processors. Under these contracts, it is common for farmers 
     and growers to be forced to sign mandatory arbitration 
     clauses, as part of a take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable 
     contract with a large, vertically integrated processing firm. 
     In doing so, the farmer is forced to give up their basic 
     constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must accept 
     an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely limits 
     their rights and is often prohibitively expensive. These 
     clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving farmers 
     little if any ability to seek justice if they become the 
     victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control of the information needed for a grower to argue their 
     case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available 
     to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration 
     proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to 
     this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an 
     extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are 
     waived through arbitration are access to mediation and 
     appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the 
     decision.
       In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less 
     costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for 
     the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of 
     arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers. 
     The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the 
     magnitude of the dispute itself, with farmers being required 
     to pay fees in the thousands of dollars just to start the 
     arbitration process.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
       Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these 
     concerns, and your willingness to introduce common sense 
     legislation to stop the abuse of arbitration clauses in the 
     livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Naylor,
     President.
                                  ____



                            Sustainable Agriculture Coalition,

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2007.
     Senator Chuck Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in support of the Fair 
     Contract for Growers Act and to thank you for your leadership 
     in introducing this legislation.
       The Fair Contracts for Growers Act is necessary to help 
     level the playing field for our farmers and ranchers who 
     enter into production contracts with packers and processors. 
     The rapid rise of vertically integrated production chains, 
     combined with the high degree of concentration of poultry 
     processors and meatpackers, leaves farmers and ranchers in 
     many regions of the country with few choices, or only a 
     single choice, of buyers for their products. Increasingly, 
     farmers and ranchers are confronted with ``take-it-or-leave-
     it,'' non-negotiable contracts, written by the company. These 
     contracts require that farmers and ranchers give up the basic 
     constitutional right of access to the courts and sign 
     mandatory binding arbitration clauses if they want access to 
     a market for their products. These clauses are signed before 
     any dispute arises, leaving the producers little, if any, 
     ability to seek justice if they become the victim of 
     fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon. Many basic 
     legal processes are not available to farmers and ranchers in 
     arbitration. In most agricultural production contract 
     disputes, the company has control of the information needed 
     for a grower to argue a case. In a civil court case, this 
     evidence would be available to the grower's attorney through 
     discovery. In an arbitration proceeding, however, the company 
     is not required to provide access to this information, thus 
     placing the grower at an extreme disadvantage. In addition, 
     in most arbitration proceedings, a decision is issued without 
     an opinion providing an explanation of the principles and 
     standards or even the facts considered in reaching the 
     decision. The arbitration proceeding is a private, closed to 
     effective public safeguards, and the arbitration decisions 
     are often confidential and rarely subject to public oversight 
     or judicia1 review.
       Moreover, there is a growing perception that the 
     arbitration system is biased towards the companies. This 
     private system is basically supported financially by the 
     companies which are involved repeatedly in arbitration cases. 
     The companies also know the history of previous arbitrations, 
     including which arbitrators generally decide in the 
     companies' favor. This arbitration history is rarely 
     available to a farmer or rancher involved in a single 
     arbitration proceeding.
       Arbitration is often assumed to be a less costly way of 
     resolving disputes than litigation. But this assumption must 
     be tested in light of the relative resources of the parties. 
     For most farmers and ranchers, arbitration is a significant 
     expense in relation to their income. One immediate financial 
     barrier is filing fees and case service fees, which in 
     arbitration are usually divided between the parties. A few 
     thousand dollars out of pocket is a minuscule expense for a 
     well-heeled company but can be an insurmountable barrier for 
     a farmer with a modest income who is in conflict with the 
     farmer's chief source of income. This significant cost 
     barrier to most farmers, when coupled with the disadvantages 
     of the arbitration process, can deny farmers an effective 
     remedy in contract dispute cases with merit.
       The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition represents family 
     farm, rural development, and conservation and environmental 
     organizations that share a commitment to federal policy 
     reform to promote sustainable agriculture and rural 
     development. Coalition member organizations include the 
     Agriculture and Land Based Training Association, American 
     Natural Heritage Foundation, C.A.S.A. del Llano (Communities 
     Assuring a Sustainable Agriculture), Center for Rural 
     Affairs, Dakota Rural Action, Delta Land and Community, Inc., 
     Future Harvest-CASA (Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable 
     Agriculture), Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Institute for 
     Agriculture and Trade Policy, Iowa Environmental Council, 
     Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Kansas Rural Center, Kerr 
     Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Land Stewardship Project, 
     Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Michigan Agricultural 
     Stewardship Association, Michigan Land Use Institute, Midwest 
     Organic and Sustainable Education Service, The Minnesota 
     Project, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National 
     Center for Appropriate Technology, Northern Plains 
     Sustainable Agriculture Society, Ohio Ecological Food and 
     Farm Association, Organic Farming Research Foundation, 
     Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Rural 
     Advancement Foundation International-USA, the Sierra Club 
     Agriculture Committee, and the Washington Sustainable Food 
     and Farming Network. Our member organizations included 
     thousands of farmers and ranchers with small and mid-size 
     operations, a number of whom have entered into agricultural 
     production contracts or are considering whether to sign these 
     contracts. As individuals, these farmers and ranchers do not 
     have the financial power or negotiating position that 
     companies enjoy in virtually every contract dispute. We agree 
     with Senator Grassley that, in the face of such unequal 
     bargaining power, the Fair Contract for Growers Act is a 
     modest and appropriate step which allows growers the choice 
     of entering into arbitration or mediation or choosing to 
     exercise the basic legal right of access to the courts.
       Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these 
     concerns, and your willingness to introduce commonsense 
     legislation to stop the abuse of mandatory arbitration 
     clauses in livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Martha L. Noble,
                                          Senior Policy Associate.

[[Page S293]]

     
                                  ____
                                 S. 221

       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 ``Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock 
     or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing 
     agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or 
     poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
       ``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or 
     poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of 
     raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance 
     with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock 
     or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
       ``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry 
     contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a 
     controversy under the livestock or poultry contract, 
     arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if, 
     after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing 
     to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
       ``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is 
     elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry 
     contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the 
     contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis 
     for the award.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``17. Livestock and poultry contracts.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract 
     entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or 
     extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Allard, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Levin, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Cornyn, 
        Mr. Graham, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Obama, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Wyden, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 223. A bill to require Senate candidates to file designations, 
statements, and reports in electronic form; to the committee on Rules 
and Administration.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with 
the, Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, and the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, a bill to bring Senate campaigns into the 21st 
century by requiring that Senate candidates file their campaign finance 
disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly 
made available to the public. This step is long overdue, and I hope 
that the fact that we now have two dozen or so bipartisan cosponsors 
indicates that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation.
  A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted 
the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for 
the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most 
other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their 
filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Campaign Finance 
Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so 
special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign 
finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates 
for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?''
  The answer, of course, is nothing. The United States Senate is 
special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse 
for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public 
when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily 
available. A recent Washington Post editorial called this delay 
``completely unjustified.'' I couldn't agree more, especially now, when 
the Senate is debating ethics reforms designed to increase transparency 
and accountability to the public. I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of this editorial be printed in the Record following the text of the 
bill.
  My bill amends the section of the election laws dealing with 
electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the 
Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 
hours. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 
hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is 
enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to 
the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast 
improvement over the current situation, which, according to the 
Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members 
of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of 
reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost 
every campaign has available in electronic format.
  The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that 
the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and 
analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for 
House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering 
the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed 
scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance 
Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest 
Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election 
if they did Web searches for information on general election 
contributions since June 30. In all ten of the most closely followed 
Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports 
for information on `pre-general election (October 1-18)' donations.'' 
And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the 
Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, 
voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate 
contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July . . .''
  It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward 
attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I am encouraged by the 
supportive statements from a number of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, including the new Minority Leader and Minority Whip, and the 
new Chair of the Rules Committee. I urge the enactment of this simple 
bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public 
scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and 
even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign 
Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st 
century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could 
significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us answer 
that question in the affirmative.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 223

       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 ``Senate Campaign Disclosure 
     Parity Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENATE CANDIDATES REQUIRED TO FILE ELECTION REPORTS 
                   IN ELECTRONIC FORM.

       (a) In General.--Section 304(a)(11)(D) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(D)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) As used in this paragraph, the terms `designation', 
     `statement', or `report' mean a designation, statement or 
     report, respectively, which--
       ``(i) is required by this Act to be filed with the 
     Commission, or
       ``(ii) is required under section 302(g) to be filed with 
     the Secretary of the Senate and forwarded by the Secretary to 
     the Commission.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 302(g)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 432(g)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``or 1 working day in the case of a 
     designation, statement, or report filed electronically'' 
     after ``2 working days''.
       (2) Section 304(a)(11)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)(11)(B)) is amended by inserting ``or filed with the 
     Secretary of the Senate under section 302(g)(1) and forwarded 
     to the Commission'' after ``Act''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any designation, statement, or report required 
     to be filed after the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page S294]]

     
                                  ____
                [From The Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2006]

 Dark Ages Disclosure; It's Time for the Senate To Bring Its Campaign 
                   Filing System Into the Modern Era

       Three years ago we wrote an editorial using the headline 
     above. It decried the senseless and costly loophole under 
     which people running for the Senate--alone among federal 
     political candidates and committees--aren't required to file 
     campaign finance reports electronically. In an age when such 
     reports can be filed with the click of a mouse, Senate 
     candidates submit their disclosures on paper, with weeks of 
     delay before they are transferred to a form available and 
     searchable on the Internet. As a result, in the final stretch 
     of campaigns, anyone interested in learning who is 
     bankrolling Senate candidates or how they are spending the 
     cash has to go page by page through voluminous reports. This 
     delay is so obviously unjustified that we expected the legal 
     glitch to be quickly fixed.
       Naive us. Three years later, the situation remains 
     unaddressed. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, as 
     late as the week before Election Day, in all 10 of the most 
     closely followed Senate races, no detailed information was 
     available online about contributions between Oct. 1 and Oct. 
     18, the last filing period before the election. For six 
     candidates in those races--Democrats Ned Lamont (Conn.), 
     Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and 
     Republicans Mike DeWine (Ohio), Rick Santorum (Pa.) and 
     Thomas H. Kean Jr. (N.J.)--the only financial information 
     available was from before June 30.
       It would be easy to change the rule, and the Senate should 
     do so in the final days of the 109th Congress. More than 20 
     senators, of both parties, have signed on to S. 1508, the 
     Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. If any senator opposes 
     requiring electronic filing, none is willing to say so. 
     Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who was rumored to be 
     opposed to the change, says he is for it. Senate Rules 
     Committee Chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.), whose panel has 
     jurisdiction in this area, said three years ago that it was 
     ``part of honesty in elections, I think. Make it 
     accessible.'' Now what's needed is for Mr. Lott to get 
     committee members' approval to speed the matter to the Senate 
     floor.
       To put it bluntly: Republicans, why let the new Democratic 
     majority get credit for making this obvious fix? Do it now, 
     while you're still in charge.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 224. A bill to create or 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 benchmarked against such standards, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on the 5th anniversary of No Child Left 
Behind (NCLB), I rise today to introduce The Standards to Provide 
Educational Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, a bill designed to start 
the job of holding every child in America to the same high standards. 
At its core, SPEAK 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 and 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 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 use 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.
  The SPEAK Act 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 the 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 significant 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 education. 
It is not a step that I am taking alone.
  The SPEAK Act has garnered endorsements from businesses, math/science 
organizations, foundations, and the education community, including the 
National Education Association (NEA). Through the leadership of 
Congressman Vernon Ehlers in the House of Representatives it shares not 
only bicameral, but bipartisan support. Together we have all come 
together to affect meaningful change in our public schools.
  We live in an economy where you can no longer lift, dig or assemble 
your way to success. Today, you've got to think your way to success so 
that when public education doesn't work, when we fail to compete as one 
nation, our entire country gets left behind. Low expectations translate 
to an America that is less competitive on the world stage. If that 
happens, we are going to wonder why we didn't do anything about it 
while we still had time.
  Core American standards will set high goals for all students, allow 
for meaningful comparisons of achievement across States, and help 
ensure

[[Page S295]]

that all of our students are qualified to enter college. At the end of 
the day, we all want what's best for our country and parents want 
what's best for their kids. With core standards, America will begin the 
work of regaining its competitive edge in the global economy. And in 
the life of every student, equality will be made a little more real 
with introduction of this bill, as the skills and knowledge we expect 
of them are no longer made contingent on where they reside.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act. 
As we start holding our students to the same high standards, I expect 
that we will be amazed at the excellence that follows. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 224

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Standards 
     to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids Act'' or the 
     ``SPEAK Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Assessing science in the National Assessment of Educational 
              Progress.
Sec. 4. Definitions.
Sec. 5. Voluntary American education content standards; American 
              Standards Incentive Fund.
Sec. 6. Authorization of appropriations.

     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 
     yield 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 (a), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and 
     science'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``science,'' after 
     ``mathematics,'';
       (B) 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''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (F)--

       (I) by striking ``continue to'' ; and
       (II) by striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting 
     ``reading, mathematics, and science'';

       (C) 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
       (D) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``, require, or 
     influence'' and inserting ``or require'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting 
     ``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
       (4) in subsection (f)(1)(B)(v), by striking ``and 
     mathematical knowledge'' and inserting ``, mathematical 
     knowledge, and science knowledge''.
       (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 
     2008-2009 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.''.

     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 OR 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 Achievement 
     for Kids Act and from amounts appropriated under section 
     307(a)(3) for a fiscal year, the Assessment Board shall 
     create or 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 or 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 existing standards in mathematics and science 
     developed by professional organizations.
       ``(5) Review State standards in mathematics and science as 
     of the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide 
     Educational Achievement for Kids Act and consult and work 
     with entities that are developing, or have already developed, 
     such State standards.
       ``(6) Review the reports, views, and analyses of a broad 
     spectrum of experts, including classroom educators, and of 
     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.
       ``(7) Review scientifically rigorous studies that examine 
     the relationship between--
       ``(A) the sequences of secondary school-level mathematics 
     and science courses; and

[[Page S296]]

       ``(B) student achievement.
       ``(8) Ensure that steps are taken in the development of the 
     voluntary American education content standards to recognize 
     the needs of students who receive special education and 
     related services under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and of students who 
     are limited English proficient (as defined in section 9101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801)).
       ``(9) Solicit input from State and local representative 
     organizations, mathematics and science organizations 
     (including mathematics and science teacher organizations), 
     institutions of higher education, higher education 
     organizations, business organizations, and other appropriate 
     organizations.
       ``(10) 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.
       ``(11) Widely disseminate the voluntary American education 
     content standards for public review and comment before final 
     adoption.
       ``(12) 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 organizations and entities, 
     including--
       ``(i) 1 or more professional mathematics or science 
     organizations, including mathematics or science educator 
     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) 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)).
       ``(b) 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 (c).
       ``(c) 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 (f).
       ``(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.
       ``(3) SEA collaboration permitted.--A State educational 
     agency receiving a grant under this subsection may 
     collaborate with another State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this subsection in carrying out the activities 
     described in subsection (f).
       ``(d) Core Standards.--A State educational agency receiving 
     a grant under subsection (c) 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.
       ``(e) State Application.--A State educational agency 
     desiring to receive a grant under subsection (c) 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 (f)(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 (f)(2).
       ``(f) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Mandatory activities.--A State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under subsection (c) 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 not later than 4 years after the 
     receipt of the grant.
       ``(E) Develop dissemination, technical assistance, and 
     professional development activities for the purpose of 
     educating local educational agencies and schools on what the 
     standards adopted by the State educational agency under this 
     section are and how the standards can be incorporated into 
     classroom instruction.
       ``(2) Permissive activities.--A State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under subsection (c) may use the grant 
     funds to carry out, at the local educational agency or State 
     educational agency level, any of the following activities:
       ``(A) Develop curricula and instructional materials in 
     mathematics or science that are aligned with the voluntary 
     American education content standards in mathematics and 
     science.
       ``(B) 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 subparagraph (A) 
     of paragraph (2).
       ``(g) Award Basis.--In determining the amount of a grant 
     under subsection (c), 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 created or 
     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 (e).
       ``(h) Annual State Educational Agency Reports.--A State 
     educational agency receiving a grant under subsection (c) 
     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 
     (e)(1).
       ``(i) 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 (c) to the Secretary of Defense 
     on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools 
     operated by the Department of Defense to enable the Secretary 
     of Defense to carry out activities similar to the activities 
     described in subsection (f) for the elementary schools and 
     secondary schools operated by the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) Bureau of indian affairs schools.--From amounts 
     available from the American Standards Incentive Fund, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, may award grants under subsection (c) 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 Director of the Bureau

[[Page S297]]

     of Indian Affairs to carry out activities similar to the 
     activities described in subsection (f) for the elementary 
     schools and secondary schools operated or funded by the 
     Department of the Interior.
       ``(j) 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 (c), 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.
       ``(k) Data Grant.--
       ``(1) Program authorized.--
       ``(A) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     307(a)(4), the Secretary shall award, to each State 
     educational agency that meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (3), a grant to enhance statewide student level longitudinal 
     data systems as those systems relate to the requirements of 
     part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
       ``(B) Data audit system.--The State, through the 
     implementation of such enhanced data system, shall--
       ``(i) ensure that the State has in place a State data audit 
     system to assess data quality, validity, and reliability; and
       ``(ii) provide guidance, technical assistance, and 
     professional development to local educational agencies to 
     ensure local education officials and educators have the 
     tools, knowledge, and protocol necessary to use the enhanced 
     data system properly, ensure the integrity of the data, and 
     be able to use the data to inform education policy and 
     practice.
       ``(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 that receive 
     a grant under this subsection, then 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 (c); 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 (c).
       ``(5) Limit on number of grants.--In no case shall a State 
     educational agency receive more than 1 grant under this 
     subsection.
       ``(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational 
     Achievement for Kids Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the status of 
     all grants awarded under this section.
       ``(m) 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.
       ``(n) 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 less than 2 years and by not more than 
     4 years for a State served by a State educational agency that 
     receives grants under subsections (c) and (k).''.

     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. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 225. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the 
number of individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits from 
traumatic injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
legislation that I introduced last November along with the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and that I am again 
introducing today. The bill would expand the number of eligible 
recipients of retroactive payments under the Traumatic Injury 
Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or ``TSGLI'', 
benefit. Most of my colleagues have perhaps heard the story of how this 
important benefit became law and what its intended purpose is, but I 
believe it is worth repeating.
  In April of 2005 I was visited by three servicemembers who were 
seriously injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They were 
members of an organization called the Wounded Warrior Project, and they 
told me of their lengthy recovery times at Walter Reed Army Medical 
Center and the financial toll that that period of convalescence had on 
them and their families. They talked about wives, parents, and other 
relatives who had taken long absences from work, and some who had even 
quit their work, in order to spend time with those recovering at Walter 
Reed. And they told me that the Department of Veterans Affairs 
compensation system was no help because, by law, those benefits do not 
kick in until after separation from service.
  Based on their experiences, these wounded warriors recommended that I 
pursue legislation to create a new insurance benefit for those with 
traumatic injuries such as theirs. The insurance would pay between 
$25,000 and $100,000 as soon as possible after an injury occurred, 
thereby bridging the gap in assistance needed during the time of a 
wounded servicemember's recovery and the time of his or her separation 
from service. They asked that I make the legislation prospective only, 
meaning that they, and hundreds of others, would go without any TSGLI 
payment. I honored that request and, together with Senator Akaka and 
other Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced an 
amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill then 
pending before the Senate.
  A second degree amendment was later unanimously agreed to which 
authorized retroactive benefit payments to all of those injured in the 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) theaters 
of operation--providing for TSGLI payments to hundreds of 
servicemembers who had been seriously injured since the start of the 
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, the retroactive TSGLI 
provision was consistent with other retroactive benefits approved 
within the Emergency Supplemental bill, such as $238,000 in combined 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and death gratuity benefits 
that were provided retroactively to survivors of those killed in combat 
operations since the start of the War on Terror. Needless to say, the 
TSGLI amendments were approved by the Congress and enacted into law.
  Fast forward to the present. TSGLI has been up and running since 
December 1, 2005, and provides financial assistance of $25,000 to 
$100,000 to traumatically injured servicemembers within, on average, 60 
days of the date of the injury causing event. As of January 5, 2007, 
almost 2,233 wounded OIF/OEF servicemembers have benefited under the 
retroactive portion of the program. For those with injuries post 
December 1, 2005, it does not matter if an injury occurs as a result of 
combat operations or training exercises--payment under TSGLI is 
available in either situation; 626 wounded servicemembers have 
benefited under this aspect of the program.
  The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI 
benefit in September 2006. The Committee received testimony from the 
Wounded Warrior Project, the organization largely responsible for 
TSGLI's conception. While very pleased with the program overall, a 
serious concern was raised regarding the equity of only extending 
retroactive TSGLI payments to those injured during Operations Iraqi and 
Enduring Freedom. Mr. Jeremy Chwat, testifying for the Wounded

[[Page S298]]

Warrior Project that day, used the example of one servicemember as 
representative of others who are not now eligible for benefits:

       Brave men and women like Seaman Robert Roeder who was 
     injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the 
     aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg 
     below the knee . . . Although the ship was on its way to the 
     Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in 
     preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi 
     Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment.

  Furthermore, since enactment of the 2005 Emergency Supplemental, 
retroactive SGLI and death gratuity benefits combining $238,000 have 
been expanded to provide payments to survivors of all servicemembers 
who died on active duty, whether in combat or not. The reason behind 
the expansion of retroactive benefits was a recognition that military 
service is universal in character; that each military man or woman, no 
matter where they are serving, contributes in a unique way to make the 
United States Armed Forces second to none.
  The legislation I am again introducing today, along with Senator 
Akaka, will make the TSGLI retroactive payment eligibility criteria 
consistent with the other benefit program retroactive payment criteria 
I just mentioned. Thus, if this legislation is enacted, all 
traumatically injured servicemembers who served between October 7, 
2001, and December 1, 2005, will be eligible for TSGLI payments, 
irrespective of where their injuries occurred. Unofficial estimates 
from VA suggest that there may be over 215 active duty personnel who, 
like Seaman Roeder, sustained traumatic injuries during this time 
period while performing their military duties.
  Both the Wounded Warrior Project and the National Military Families 
Association have expressed their support for this bill. And I now ask 
my colleagues for their support. This is the right thing to do for our 
military men and women.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill text be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF INDIVIDUALS QUALIFYING FOR 
                   RETROACTIVE BENEFITS FROM TRAUMATIC INJURY 
                   PROTECTION COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP 
                   LIFE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 501(b) of the 
     Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 
     2006 (Public Law 109-233; 120 Stat. 414; 38 U.S.C. 1980A 
     note) is amended by striking ``, if, as determined by the 
     Secretary concerned, that loss was a direct result of a 
     traumatic injury incurred in the theater of operations for 
     Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of such section is 
     amended by striking ``in Operation Enduring Freedom and 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 226. A bill to direct the Inspector General of the Department of 
Justice to submit semi-annual reports regarding settlements relating to 
false claims and fraud against the Federal Government; to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 226

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FALSE CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS.

       Section 8E of the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) In preparing the semi-annual report under section 
     5, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 
     describe each settlement or compromise of any claim, suit, or 
     other action entered into with the Department of Justice 
     that--
       ``(A) relates to an alleged violation of section 1031 of 
     title 18, United States Code, or section 3729 of title 31, 
     United States Code (including all settlements of alternative 
     remedies); and
       ``(B) results from a claim of damages in excess of 
     $100,000.
       ``(2) The descriptions of each settlement or compromise 
     required to be included in the semi-annual report under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) the overall amount of the settlement or compromise 
     and the portions of the settlement attributed to various 
     statutory authorities;
       ``(B) the amount of actual damages estimated to have been 
     sustained and the minimum and maximum potential civil 
     penalties incurred as a consequence of the defendants that is 
     the subject of the settlement or compromise;
       ``(C) the basis for the estimate of damages sustained and 
     the potential civil penalties incurred;
       ``(D) the amount of the settlement that represents damages 
     and the multiplier or percentage of the actual damages 
     applied in the actual settlement or compromise;
       ``(E) the amount of the settlement that represents civil 
     penalties and the percentage of the potential penalty 
     liability captured by the settlement or compromise;
       ``(F) the amount of the settlement that represents criminal 
     fines and a statement of the basis for such fines;
       ``(G) the length of time involved from the filing of the 
     complaint until the finalization of the settlement or 
     compromise, including--
       ``(i) the date of the original filing of the complaint;
       ``(ii) the time the case remained under seal;
       ``(iii) the date upon which the Department of Justice 
     determined whether or not to intervene in the case; and
       ``(iv) the date of settlement or compromise;
       ``(H) whether any of the defendants, or any divisions, 
     subsidiaries, affiliates, or related entities, had previously 
     entered into 1 or more settlements or compromises related to 
     section 1031 of title 18, United States Code, or section 
     3730(b) of title 31, United States Code, and if so, the dates 
     and monetary size of such settlements or compromises;
       ``(I) whether the defendant or any of its divisions, 
     subsidiaries, affiliates, or related entities--
       ``(i) entered into a corporate integrity agreement related 
     to the settlement or compromise; and
       ``(ii) had previously entered into 1 or more corporate 
     integrity agreements related to section 3730(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, and if so, whether the previous corporate 
     integrity agreements covered the conduct that is the subject 
     of the settlement or compromise being reported on or similar 
     conduct;
       ``(J) in the case of settlements involving medicaid, the 
     amounts paid to the Federal Government and to each of the 
     States participating in the settlement or compromise;
       ``(K) whether civil investigative demands were issued in 
     process of investigating the case;
       ``(L) in qui tam actions, the percentage of the settlement 
     amount awarded to the relator, and whether or not the relator 
     requested a fairness hearing pertaining to the percentage 
     received by the relator or the overall amount of the 
     settlement;
       ``(M) the extent to which officers of the department or 
     agency that was the victim of the loss resolved by the 
     settlement or compromise participated in the settlement 
     negotiations; and
       ``(N) the extent to which relators and their counsel 
     participated in the settlement negotiations.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 229. A bill to redesignate a Federal building in Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, as the ``Raymond G. Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Bingaman, to introduce legislation that will designate the Veterans 
Administration Medical Center in Albuquerque, NM, the ``Raymond G. 
Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.''
  Jerry Murphy is an extraordinary New Mexican who was awarded the 
Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroic actions on February 3, 
1953, while serving in the Korean war. On that day in February 1953, 
Marine 2nd Lieutenant Murphy participated in a raid on Ungok Hill. In 
the course of the operation, most of the senior officers in Lieutenant 
Murphy's unit were killed or wounded and the assault on the hill became 
stalled with many members of the Marine assault force pinned down and 
trapped on the hill by enemy fire. Seeing his fellow marines in trouble 
and against orders Lieutenant Murphy organized and led a daring rescue 
effort. Under intense enemy fire, Murphy personally made countless 
trips up the hill to evacuate and provide cover for the stranded 
marines. Though he was wounded numerous times, Lieutenant Murphy 
refused treatment for his wounds until all marines were accounted for 
and everyone else had been treated. Lieutenant Murphy was also awarded 
a Silver Star for bravery in a previous action in 1952.
  Jerry's personal mission to protect and aid his fellow servicemen and

[[Page S299]]

women did not end on that hill in Korea, for 25 years he worked in the 
Veteran's Administration, VA regional office in Albuquerque, New 
Mexico. While there Jerry worked tirelessly as a counselor in the 
Division of Vocational Counseling to insure the men and women who 
served and defended our Nation were able to make the transition to life 
in peacetime.
  Unlike many of us who look to retirement as a time for personal 
pursuits and relaxation, Jerry chose to carry on his work on behalf of 
veterans and until 2000 volunteered at the VA hospital in Albuquerque, 
NM.
  For these reasons I am introducing this legislation today. Jerry 
Murphy is a true American hero who in war and peace dedicated himself 
to others. I think it only right that the medical center in Albuquerque 
bear his name in recognition of his great service to this country and 
its men and women in uniform.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 229

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

       The Federal building known and designated as the 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center'' located at 
     1501 San Pedro Drive, SE, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, shall 
     be known and redesignated as the ``Raymond G. Murphy 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the ``Raymond G. Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Medical Center''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Obama, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Kohl, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Biden, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Salazar):
  S. 231. A bill to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chambliss 
and a number of other co-sponsors in introducing the Edward Byrne 
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Reauthorization Act. This bill would 
take the $1,095,000,000 amount which Congress authorized for the Byrne/
JAG grant program in fiscal year 2006 in the Violence Against Women and 
DOJ Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162), and reauthorize that 
same amount for the program in each year through fiscal year 2012.
  The ``Byrne/JAG'' program resulted from the 2005 consolidation of the 
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
Program, and the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants.
  Named after New York Police Officer Edward Byrne, who was killed in 
the line of duty in 1988, it provides critical support to State and 
local law enforcement officials.
  Byrne/JAG is a law enforcement funding program run by the Department 
of Justice. For more than 20 years, grants from Byrne/JAG and its 
predecessor programs have funded state and local drug task forces, 
community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment 
programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control 
programs.
  One of the most popular uses of Byrne/JAG funds is to support multi-
jurisdictional task forces, which help fight drug and firearm 
traffickers, gangs, pharmaceutical diversion, and organized crime in 
America's communities.
  Results from Byrne/JAG are real. According to data compiled by the 
National Criminal Justice Association from self-reported metrics 
submitted by State Administering Agencies for the 2004 grant year, task 
forces funded in part by Byrne/JAG grants were responsible for: 54,050 
weapons seized; 5,646 methamphetamine labs seized; and $250,000,000 in 
cash and personal property seized, not including the value of narcotics 
seized. They were also responsible for removing massive quantities of 
controlled substances from America's streets, including: 2.7 million 
grams of amphetamine and methamphetamine; 1.8 million grams of powder 
cocaine; 278,200 grams of ``crack'' cocaine; 73,300 grams of heroin; 75 
million cultivated and noncultivated marijuana plants, and 27 million 
kilograms of marijuana.
  As Ron Brooks, President of the National Narcotics Officers' 
Associations' Coalition (NNOAC) testified last June, ``more than one-
third of all meth lab seizures were conducted by Byrne-funded task 
forces.''
  We get good returns on this investment. The National Sheriff's 
Association estimates that, with 2,794 personnel in multi-
jurisdictional drug tasks forces, this equates to: 79 drug arrests per 
full-time employee (221,475 total); 6 kilograms of cocaine seized per 
FTE. (17,991 total); 2 kilograms of meth seized per FTE, 5,452 kilos 
total''; 400 grams of heroine seized per FTE, 1,177 kilos total, 306 
lbs. of processed marijuana per FTE, 855,309 total; and 3 meth lab 
responses per FTE, 8,983 total.
  And our rural communities are especially dependent on Byrne/JAG 
grants. Byrne/JAG grants to the States are allocated 60/40, so that 40 
percent of the funds must be set aside for distribution to local 
governments. In short, this is one of the only sources of federal funds 
for sheriffs and police chiefs in many of our smaller towns and 
counties.
  When Byrne/JAG and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
program were well funded, state and local law enforcement officers 
produced real results. It is no coincidence that, during this period, 
we saw more than a decade of steady reductions in violent crime.
  Unfortunately, Federal funding for these justice assistance programs 
has been dramatically slashed in recent years. As late as Fiscal Year 
2003, the Byrne grant programs had been funded at a level of $900 
million. In Fiscal Year 2004, however, it was reduced to $725 million. 
And in FY2005, Byrne/JAG was cut to $634 million.
  That year in California, the Governor issued a notice to the law 
enforcement community, advising that this change would ``significantly 
reduce the amount of drug control and criminal justice funding in 
California''--by a whopping $14 million in one year, just for my State.
  In Fiscal Year 2006, the program was cut even further, to only $416.5 
million--amounting to a 54 percent cut from Fiscal Year 2003. In Fiscal 
Year 2006, and then again in Fiscal Year 2007, the President's budget 
proposed eliminating the Byrne program entirely.
  In response, the Senate voted to restore Byrne funding in Fiscal Year 
2006 to its Fiscal Year 2003 level of $900 million, but that increase 
was taken out of the final conference report.
  For Fiscal Year 2007, the Senate again restored $900 million in a 
budget amendment, but no appropriations bill was passed.
  What have we seen in the wake of these cuts to State and local law 
enforcement and the Byrne/JAG program?
  After a decade of declines, FBI reports for 2005 showed a rise in 
violent crime in every region of our country--an overall increase of 
2.5 percent, the largest reported increase in violent crime in the U.S. 
in 15 years.
  For the first six months of 2006, the numbers for violent crime were 
even worse--up again in every region, and with a surge of nearly 3.7 
percent. And the number of robberies--which many criminologists see as 
a leading indicator of future activity--was up by almost 10 percent. 
The reduction in Byrne/JAG and other similar funding is not the only 
reason for this increase. Experts also cite the spread of criminal 
street gangs like MS-13, for example, as a major factor in the jump in 
violent crime.
  When we are faced with such challenges, however, the Byrne/JAG 
program has a clear role to play in addressing America's growing 
violent crime problem.
  A national integrated threat demands a national integrated response, 
with State and local law enforcement leading the way, but with the 
Federal Government providing meaningful support. Byrne/JAG facilitates. 
that design, by allowing State and local leaders to leverage resources 
in key areas,

[[Page S300]]

and facilitating collaboration among those in law enforcement, 
corrections, treatment, and prevention.
  A review of programs around the country reveals that some Byrne/JAG-
funded task forces receive between $30 and $40 from State or local 
sources for every Federal dollar they receive. Rather than supplanting 
other sources, Byrne/JAG often leverages Federal dollars, by providing 
the incentive needed for local agencies to cooperate, communicate, 
share information and build good cases.
  Because State and local cops account for 97 percent of all drug 
arrests in America, further Byrne/JAG cuts will have a clear effect, as 
NNOAC President Ron Brooks testified: [T]ake away the Byrne-JAG drug 
task forces and I guarantee you will have fewer lab seizures . . . The 
meth supply will continue to grow, as will the toxic meth waste that is 
being dumped in many neighborhoods.
  Unfortunately, some of this is already happening. After the recent 
cuts to Byrne/JAG, the governor of Texas eliminated funding for most 
drug task forces in his State, because he decided the limited funding 
available was needed instead for border enforcement. Narcotics officers 
throughout the United States also report a similar trend of 
eliminations and decreases of task forces.
  Without multi-jurisdictional task forces, officers will revert to 
working within their own stovepipes, arresting mere targets of 
opportunity instead of focusing on organizational targets that have a 
disproportionate impact on the problem. Police officers will return to 
working within their own teams rather than cooperating and using shared 
intelligence to identify wider drug trafficking investigations.
  Since 9/11, we have understandably placed greater emphasis on the 
terrorist threat from abroad, and protecting our borders. But to save 
the perimeter and lose the heartland to international drug cartels, 
American street gangs, local meth cookers and neighborhood drug 
traffickers would be a hollow victory indeed.
  Last year, a group of 15 organizations--including NNOAC, the National 
Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
the Major City Chiefs' Association, the National Sheriffs Association, 
the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Alliance of 
Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Association of Counties, the 
National Association of Drug Court Professionals--all came together to 
call for the Byrne/JAG program to be funded at the $1.1 billion level.
  The 15 groups represented more than 456,000 law enforcement officers, 
drug court judges, treatment practitioners, and prosecutors from over 
2,000 counties and more than 5,000 community prevention coalitions. And 
for the 110th Congress, funding Byrne/JAG at the $1.1 billion level 
remains a top law enforcement priority.
  Passage of this bill will respond to such requests from law 
enforcement, and also send a clear message that any further efforts by 
this Administration to reduce or eliminate the Byrne/JAG program in the 
Fiscal Year 208 budget will be strongly resisted by this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 232. A bill to make permanent the authorization for watershed 
restoration and enhancement agreements; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today 
reauthorizes a very successful cooperative watershed restoration 
program that I originally sponsored, and that was originally enacted 
for the Forest Service, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Interior Appropriations 
bill. The original legislation lasted through Fiscal Year 2001 after 
which it was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committees, at my 
request, through Fiscal Year 2005 and then again through Fiscal Year 
2011. My bill passed the Senate in the 109th Congress, but 
unfortunately did not pass in the House before the end of the Congress. 
Today, I reintroduce the bill hoping that it can speedily pass both 
chambers.
  The bill making what is commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment 
permanent authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use appropriated 
Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and enhancement 
agreements that benefit the ecological health of National Forest System 
lands and watersheds. The Wyden amendment does not require additional 
funding, but allows the Forest Service to leverage scarce restoration 
dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars to stretch farther. During 
the eight years the program has existed, the Forest Service has 
leveraged three dollars for every Forest Service dollar spent on these 
agreements.
  The Wyden amendment has resulted in countless Forest Service 
cooperative agreements with neighboring state and local land owners to 
accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work 
on public and private watersheds. The projects authorized by these 
agreements have improved watershed health and fish habitat through the 
control of invasive species, culvert replacement, and other riparian 
zone improvement projects. In addition to ecological restoration, use 
of the Wyden amendment has improved cooperative relationships between 
the Forest Service, private land owners, state agencies and other 
federal agencies.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee will again pass this bill out of the Committee and that 
thereafter this legislation can again pass the Senate expeditiously. I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 232

       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 ``Watershed Restoration and 
     Enhancement Agreements Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENTS.

       Section 323 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1011 note; 
     Public Law 105-277), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2011'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2006 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Applicable Law.--Chapter 63 of title 31, United 
     States Code, shall not apply to--
       ``(1) a watershed restoration and enhancement agreement 
     entered into under this section; or
       ``(2) an agreement entered into under the first section of 
     Public Law 94-148 (16 U.S.C. 565a-1).''.

                          ____________________