[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).''.
____________________