[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2696-S2722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 765. A bill to establish a grant program to improve high school
graduation rates and prepare students for college and work; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to talk about education, something
many in this body take very seriously. I rise today to address the
Nation's dropout crisis. Each day that our schools are open,
approximately 7,000 students drop out of high school. That is 1.2
million students annually who do not complete their high school
education. Almost a third of American students who enter high school in
the ninth grade drop out of school and never receive their high school
diploma.
I know our students, our schools, our communities can do better. To
ensure that these young people have a better future and that America
maintains its competitiveness in a global economy, I suggest to all my
colleagues that we must do better.
According to a Manhattan Institute study, the high school graduation
rate for the class of 2003 nationwide was only 70 percent. Thirty
percent of our students in this country do not cross the goal line of
graduation. Even more alarming, however, is that high school graduation
rates for subgroups of students in 2003 were for White students, 78
percent; African Americans, 55 percent; Hispanics, 53 percent.
Graduating from high school is a 50-50 proposition in 930 of our high
schools in our country. Fifty percent of the students in 930 schools do
not get their high school diplomas. In 2,000 high schools, it is a 60-
40 proposition. Sixty percent are going to get their diploma, 40
percent will not get their diploma.
Just last week, my home State of North Carolina released its most
current data on our State's dropout crisis. Our statistics, likewise,
point to an urgent need to pay attention to our public high schools and
these students.
North Carolina's statewide graduation rate was 68 percent. Yet for
Black students, that rate falls to 60 percent; for low-income students,
55 percent; and for Hispanic students, 52 percent. Nearly 80 percent of
the Nation's high schools that produce the highest number of dropouts
are in 15 States, and I am embarrassed at the fact that North Carolina
is one of them.
To retain our competitive edge in the world economy, America's youths
must be prepared for the jobs of today and the jobs of the future, jobs
which increasingly require a postsecondary education. Unfortunately, in
2003, 3.5 million Americans ages 16 to 25 did not have a high school
diploma and were not enrolled in school.
Individuals without a high school diploma experience higher rates of
unemployment, incarceration, and are more likely to live in poverty and
receive public assistance than individuals with at least a high school
diploma.
We know the statistics, but they are worth repeating. Mr. President,
4 out of every 10 people ages 16 to 24 without a high school diploma
receive some type of government assistance. A high school dropout is
eight times more likely to be incarcerated than a person with a high
school diploma.
I am fortunate to represent a State with a rich history in its
commitment to higher education. The State of North Carolina is the home
of the Nation's first State university, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, which welcomed students for the first time to
its campus on January 15, 1795. All total, North Carolina has 127
degree-granting institutions of higher education--75 public and 52
private. However, North Carolina and the rest of the country cannot
rest on their laurels with their higher education systems. We should be
and are proud of our high college-going rate in North Carolina. Yet
while 64 percent of recent North Carolina high school graduates go on
to college, that number is far too low.
There is no silver bullet that will fix our educational system,
including high school reform which many have talked about. I hope more
and better research will give us a better direction and maybe better
answers, but until then, there are a number of things that we can and
we should be doing to improve what is a problem that must be addressed.
In particular, we know the three Rs to making our public high schools
work better for today's students are rigor, relevance, and
relationships. Today, Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico and I are
introducing bipartisan legislation, the Graduate for a Better Future
Act. This is to help turn the tide of our Nation's dropout crisis.
Senator Bingaman has been a stalwart leader in the Senate on issues
relating to dropout prevention. I am proud to join him in an effort to
lower high school dropout rates and to raise high school graduation and
college-going rates.
This legislation will create a competitive grant program targeted at
school districts and high schools with the lowest graduation rates,
focused on those three Rs of high school reform: rigor, relevance, and
relationships.
Funds under this act would be used for models of excellence for
academically challenging high schools to prepare all students for
college and for work; to offer academic catchup programs for those
students who enter high school and do not meet proficient levels in
mathematics, reading, language arts, or science that enable such
students to meet proficient levels and remain on track to graduate from
high school with a regular high school degree; to implement early
warning systems to quickly identify students at risk of dropping out,
especially systems that track student absenteeism, one of the greatest
predictors that a student may drop out of high school; to implement
comprehensive college guidance programs that ensure all students and
their parents are regularly notified of high school graduation
requirements, college requirements for entry, and provide guidance and
assistance to students in applying for postsecondary education and in
applying for Federal financial assistance and other State, local, and
private financial aid and scholarships; to implement a program that
offers all students opportunities for work-based and experiential
learning experiences, such as job shadowing, internships, and community
service so that students make the connection between what they are
learning in school and how that applies to the workplace that we want
them to be in; and to implement a student advisement program
[[Page S2697]]
in which all students are assigned to and have regular meetings with an
academic teacher adviser.
A recent survey of high school dropouts by Civic Enterprises presents
a picture of the American high school dropout that is surprising to
many. I know it surprised me. Eighty-eight percent of those students
who dropped out of high school had passing grades when they dropped
out. Let me say that again. Eighty-eight percent of the students who
dropped out of high school had passing grades which would have enabled
them to complete their high school diploma. But they dropped out.
Fifty-eight percent dropped out with 2 or fewer years to complete high
school; 66 percent said they would have worked harder if expectations
had been higher; 81 percent recognized that a high school diploma was
absolutely vital to their success in life; and 74 percent said they
would have stayed in school if they had it to do all over again.
Mr. President, this is the point where we get a redo. We get an
opportunity to make sure students get an opportunity in the next
generation so they don't make the same mistakes the last ones did.
Over the past 25 years, the difference in earnings between workers
with lower and higher levels of education has grown. As my home State
of North Carolina has experienced, gone are the days when an individual
with only a high school diploma or GED can find a high-paying job in
industries such as manufacturing, textiles, or furniture.
The global economy has changed the marketplace, and the competition
is no longer the person who sits next to us. It is the person who
graduates from the school we will never hear about or have an
opportunity to visit.
We know more education pays off. Over his or her lifetime, an
individual without a high school diploma will earn approximately $1.1
million less than an individual with a bachelor's degree, $1.5 million
less than an individual with a master's degree, and $2.4 million less
than an individual with a doctoral degree.
What is the message to our children and our grandchildren? Is it that
the future is more competitive than the past, that to be competitive in
the job market means we have to raise our educational skills, and as
parents and grandparents, we have to make it happen? The answer is yes.
The Senate can no longer sit by and accept rates of 30 percent of our
students who don't cross the goal line of high school and accept that
without a fight. We can do better, and we should do better.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and with my cosponsor,
Senator Bingaman, to face our Nation's dropout crisis head on. This is
a first start. This is the ability to educate parents and students
about not only how we engage them in the proficiencies they need to be
competitive but, more importantly, how we teach them that our
expectations are greater than what they felt in the past.
It is time that the Senate lead by example to begin to pass
legislation that has a real impact on the high school graduation rates
in this country; that we can look back and say it was this legislation
that started the process, and it was quickly followed up with
additional legislation that helps our youth compete, regardless of
where that job is and regardless of who their competition is.
As this legislation comes before the committee and comes to this
floor, I urge my colleagues to pay particular attention to the impact
it has on our children and our grandchildren but, more importantly, on
our competitiveness in the future.
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. 765
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 ``Graduate
for a Better Future Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents to this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purposes.
Sec. 4. Definitions.
Sec. 5. Program authorized.
Sec. 6. Reporting and accountability.
Sec. 7. Evaluation and report.
Sec. 8. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The high school graduation rate for the class of 2003
was only 70 percent nationwide. Thus, almost \1/3\ of
American students who enter high school in 9th grade drop out
of school and never receive a high school diploma.
(2) Large disparities exist in the high school graduation
rates among various subgroups of students. Although the high
school graduation rate for white students was 78 percent in
2003, the rate for African American students was only 55
percent, and the rate for Hispanic students was only 53
percent.
(3) For students in approximately 2,000 high schools across
the United States, the chance of graduating from high school
is less than 60 percent.
(4) In 2003, 3,500,000 Americans ages 16 to 25 did not have
a high school diploma and were not enrolled in school.
(5) To retain its competitive edge in the world economy, it
is essential that America's youth be prepared for the jobs of
today and for the jobs of the future. Such jobs increasingly
require a post-secondary education.
(6) Individuals without a high school diploma experience
higher rates of unemployment, incarceration, living in
poverty, and receiving public assistance than individuals
with at least a high school diploma.
(7) Over his or her lifetime, an individual without a high
school diploma will earn approximately $1,100,000 less than
an individual with a bachelor's degree, $1,500,000 less than
an individual with a master's degree, and $2,400,000 less
than an individual with a doctoral degree.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to create models of excellence for academically
rigorous high schools, including early college high schools,
in order to prepare all students for college and work;
(2) to raise high school graduation rates and college-going
rates;
(3) to reduce college remediation rates;
(4) to create a seamless curriculum between high school and
college;
(5) to improve teaching and curricula to make high school
more rigorous and relevant;
(6) to improve instruction and access to supports for
struggling high school students;
(7) to improve communication between parents, students, and
schools; and
(8) to create, implement, and utilize early warning systems
to help identify students at risk of dropping out of high
school, especially systems that monitor student absenteeism.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
(1) Advanced placement or international baccalaureate
course.--The term ``Advanced Placement or International
Baccalaureate course'' means a course of college-level
instruction provided to middle school or secondary school
students, terminating in an examination administered by the
College Board or the International Baccalaureate
Organization.
(2) College-going rate.--The term ``college-going rate''
means the percentage of high school graduates who enroll at
an institution of higher education in the school year
immediately following graduation from high school.
(3) Dual credit courses.--The term ``dual credit course''
means a college course that--
(A) may be taken at a high school or at an institution of
higher education;
(B) is taught by--
(i) college faculty; or
(ii) high school faculty with credentials that the eligible
entity determines are appropriate; and
(C) the successful completion of which can earn high school
academic credit as well as college academic credit.
(4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(A) a State educational agency;
(B) a national, regional, or statewide nonprofit
organization with expertise and experience in working with
local educational agencies and high schools to raise high
school academic achievement, high school graduation rates,
and college-going rates; or
(C) a partnership consisting of a State educational agency
and an entity described in subparagraph (B).
(5) Eligible local educational agency.--The term ``eligible
local educational agency'' means a local educational agency
with a high school graduation rate of 60 percent or less--
(A) in the aggregate; or
(B) applicable to 2 or more of the following subgroups of
high school students served by the local educational agency:
(i) Economically disadvantaged students.
(ii) Students from major racial or ethnic groups.
(6) High school.--The term ``high school'' means a
nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including
a public charter high school, that provides high school
education, as determined under State law.
(7) High school graduation rate.--The term ``high school
graduation rate'' means the percentage of students who
graduate from high school with a regular diploma in the
standard number of years as measured by
[[Page S2698]]
a valid and reliable measure of high school graduation rates,
such as the averaged freshman graduation rate.
(8) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(9) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(10) Parent.--The term ``parent'' has the meaning given the
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(11) Rigorous secondary school program of study.--The term
``rigorous secondary school program of study'' means a
rigorous secondary school program of study recognized as such
by the Secretary for purposes of subparagraph (A)(i) or
(B)(i) of section 401A(c)(3) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-1(c)(3)).
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(13) State educational agency.--The term ``State
educational agency'' has the meaning given the term in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
(14) Student with a disability.--The term ``student with a
disability'' means a child with a disability, as defined in
section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).
SEC. 5. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under section 8
for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized to award
grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to
enable eligible entities to award subgrants to eligible local
educational agencies for the authorized activities described
in subsection (d).
(b) Duration.--
(1) Grants.--The Secretary may award grants under this Act
(other than a planning grant under subsection (c)(3)) for a
period of not more than 6 years.
(2) Subgrants.--An eligible entity may award subgrants
under this Act for a period of not more than 5 years.
(c) Eligible Entity Authorized Activities.--
(1) Distribution.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this Act--
(A) shall reserve not more than 15 percent of the grant
funds to carry out the activities described in paragraphs (2)
through (5); and
(B) shall use not less than 85 percent of the grant funds
to award subgrants, on a competitive basis, to eligible local
educational agencies to enable the eligible local educational
agencies to carry out the authorized activities described in
subsection (d).
(2) State level planning and administration.--An eligible
entity that receives a grant under this Act may use the grant
funds reserved under paragraph (1)(A) for planning and
administration, including--
(A) evaluating applications from eligible local educational
agencies;
(B) administering the distribution of subgrants to eligible
local educational agencies; and
(C) assessing and evaluating, on a regular basis, eligible
local educational agency activities carried out under this
Act, including regularly evaluating the academic rigor of
courses at high schools in the State that receive funding
under this Act.
(3) Local educational agency planning grants.--
(A) In general.--From amounts reserved under paragraph
(1)(A), an eligible entity may award a planning grant to an
eligible local educational agency.
(B) Amount.--An eligible entity shall award each planning
grant under this paragraph in the amount of $10,000.
(C) Duration and use of planning grant funds.--Each
planning grant shall be--
(i) awarded for a period of 1 year;
(ii) nonrenewable; and
(iii) used to plan and apply for a subgrant awarded under
paragraph (1)(B).
(4) Technical assistance for local educational agencies.--
An eligible entity that receives a grant under this Act may
use the grant funds reserved under paragraph (1)(A) for
technical assistance, including--
(A) assisting eligible local educational agencies in
accomplishing the tasks required to implement a program under
this Act;
(B) implementing a program of professional development for
teachers and administrators, in high schools that receive
funding under this Act, that prepares teachers and
administrators to implement the authorized activities
described in subsection (d); and
(C) assisting eligible local educational agencies in
designing a program to be assisted under this Act.
(5) Reporting.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this Act may use the grant funds reserved under
paragraph (1)(A) for annually providing the Secretary with a
report on the implementation of this section as required
under section 6.
(d) Eligible Local Educational Agency Authorized
Activities.--Each eligible local educational agency receiving
a subgrant under this Act, shall use the subgrant funds to
carry out each of the following activities:
(1) To implement a college-preparatory curriculum for all
students in a high school served by the eligible local
educational agency under this Act (and for students with
disabilities in accordance with the individualized education
program of the student) that is, at a minimum, aligned with a
rigorous secondary school program of study.
(2) To implement accelerated academic catch-up programs,
for students who enter high school not meeting proficient
levels of academic achievement in mathematics, reading or
language arts, or science, that enable such students to meet
the proficient levels of achievement and remain on track to
graduate from high school on time with a regular high school
diploma.
(3) To implement an early warning system to quickly
identify students at risk of dropping out of high school,
including systems that track student absenteeism.
(4) To implement a system of student and classroom progress
monitoring, which may include the adoption and use of
diagnostic or formative assessments that--
(A) measure student academic progress in the core academic
areas; and
(B) may identify areas in which students need additional
academic assistance and support.
(5) To implement a comprehensive college guidance program
that--
(A) will ensure that all students in a high school served
by the eligible local educational agency under this Act, and
their parents, are regularly notified throughout the
students' time in high school, of high school graduation
requirements and college entrance requirements; and
(B) provides guidance and assistance to students in
applying to an institution of higher education and in
applying for Federal financial aid assistance and other
State, local, and private financial aid assistance and
scholarships.
(6) To implement a program that offers, all students in a
high school served by the eligible local educational agency
under this Act, opportunities for work-based and experiential
learning experiences, such as job-shadowing, internships, and
community service.
(7) To implement a program that ensures that all students
in a high school served by the eligible local educational
agency under this Act, have access to and enroll in courses
in which the students may earn college credit for courses
taken while in high school, such as a dual credit course, or
an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate course.
(8) To implement a program of student advisement in which
all students in a high school served by the eligible local
educational agency under this Act are assigned and have
regular meetings with an academic teacher advisor.
(9) To implement a program of teacher professional
development and institutional leadership that includes use of
diagnostic and formative assessments to identify student and
teacher needs, to assess classroom practice, and to improve
classroom instruction.
(e) Applications.--
(1) Eligible entity.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary
at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
Each application shall--
(A) include a description of how subgrants made by the
eligible entity under this Act will meet the requirements
described in subsection (d);
(B) include a description of the peer review process the
eligible entity shall use to evaluate applications from
eligible local educational agencies;
(C) contain an assurance that the eligible entity, and any
eligible local educational agencies receiving a subgrant from
that eligible entity, will, if requested, participate in the
independent evaluation under section 7(1);
(D) describe how the eligible entity will use grant funds
received under this section;
(E) describe how the eligible entity will assist eligible
local educational agencies that receive planning grant funds
or subgrant funds under this Act in securing any necessary
waivers from the State educational agency that may be
required to carry out the requirements of this Act, such as
waivers with respect to budgeting, school structure,
staffing, and flexible use of resources and time; and
(F) describe how the eligible entity will assess and
evaluate, on a regular basis, eligible local educational
agency activities carried out under this Act, including
regularly evaluating the academic rigor of courses at high
schools in the State that receive funding under this Act.
(2) Eligible local educational agency.--Each eligible local
educational agency desiring a subgrant under this section
shall submit an application to the eligible entity at such
time and in such manner as the eligible entity may require.
Each application shall--
(A) include a description of each high school that will
receive funding from the eligible local educational agency
under this Act, including such high school graduation,
academic achievement, demographic, and socioeconomic data as
the eligible entity may request;
(B) contain an assurance that academic merit tests will not
be used to determine student enrollment in each such high
school;
(C) contain a description of specific outreach and
recruitment efforts at each such high school that will be
undertaken for student populations historically
underrepresented at institutions of higher education;
(D) contain an assurance that a college-preparatory
curriculum will be offered to all students at each such high
school (and to students with disabilities in accordance with
the individualized education program of the
[[Page S2699]]
student), that is, at a minimum, aligned with a rigorous
secondary school program of study;
(E) include a comprehensive description of how curriculum
at each such high school will be developed, structured, and
delivered;
(F) include clearly delineated benchmarks for improved
student academic achievement, high school graduation rates,
and college-going rates at each such high school;
(G) include a description of assessments that will be used
at each such high school, including assessments for school
accountability purposes and student progress monitoring
purposes;
(H) contain a comprehensive plan for professional
development at each such high school that includes intended
changes in teaching practices that will result in improved
student academic achievement, high school graduation rates,
and college-going rates;
(I) include a detailed description of work-based and
experiential learning experiences that will be offered for
all students at each such high school, such as job shadowing,
internships, and community service;
(J) contain an assurance that all students at each such
high school will be assigned and have regular access to an
academic teacher advisor;
(K) contain an assurance that the eligible local
educational agency will grant each such high school any
necessary waivers from local educational agency policies and
rules that may be required to carry out the requirements of
this Act, such as waivers with respect to budgeting, school
structure, staffing, and flexible use of resources and time;
(L) include a plan that details how programs assisted under
this Act will be sustained after the end of subgrant funding
under this Act;
(M) in the case of dual credit courses and early college
high schools, contain formal agreements between the eligible
local educational agency and institutions of higher education
that detail shared responsibility for each such high school
and students at the high school;
(N) include a description of school staffing considerations
and how teachers will be selected for each such high school;
(O) include a detailed plan of the college awareness
program at each such high school that addresses applying for
admission to an institution of higher education and applying
for financial aid; and
(P) contain an assurance that the eligible local
educational agency will report to the eligible entity all
data necessary for the eligible entity's report under section
6.
(f) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each eligible
entity that receives a grant under this section shall
provide, toward the cost of the activities assisted under the
grant, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 100
percent of the amount of the grant.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or part of the
matching requirement described in paragraph (1) for any
fiscal year for an eligible entity if the Secretary
determines that applying the matching requirement to such
eligible entity would result in serious hardship or an
inability to carry out the authorized activities described in
subsection (c).
(3) Supplement not supplant.--Grant funds provided under
this Act shall be used to supplement, not supplant, other
Federal and State funds available to carry out the activities
described in subsection (d).
SEC. 6. REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Collection of Data.--Each eligible entity receiving a
grant under this Act shall collect and report annually to the
Secretary such information on the results of the activities
assisted under the grant as the Secretary may reasonably
require, including information on--
(1) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and graduate from high school on
time with a regular high school diploma;
(2) the number and percentage of students, at each grade
level, in the State who are assisted under this Act and meet
or exceed State reading or language arts, mathematics, or
science standards, as measured by State academic assessments
required under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3));
(3) the number and percentage of students, at each grade
level, in the State who are assisted under this Act and are
on track to graduate from high school on time and with a
regular high school diploma;
(4) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and participate in work-based and
experiential learning experiences, such as job shadowing,
internships, community service, and descriptive information
on the types of experiences in which such students
participated;
(5) the number and percentage of students, in grades 11 and
12, in the State who are assisted under this Act and enrolled
in not less than 2 of the following:
(A) a dual credit course; or
(B) an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate
course;
(6) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and receive a passing grade or
higher for a dual credit course, or an Advanced Placement or
International Baccalaureate course;
(7) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and apply to an institution of
higher education while still in high school;
(8) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and are accepted to an
institution of higher education while still in high school;
(9) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and enroll in an institution of
higher education in the school year immediately following the
students' high school graduation;
(10) the number and percentage of students in the State who
are assisted under this Act and enrolled in remedial
mathematics or English courses during their freshman year at
an institution of higher education;
(11) the number and percentage of students, in grade 10, in
the State who are assisted under this Act and take the PSAT;
and
(12) the number and percentage of students, in grades 11
and 12, in the State who are assisted under this Act and take
the SAT or ACT, and the students' mean scores on such
assessments.
(b) Reporting of Data.--Each eligible entity receiving a
grant under this section shall report the information
required under subsection (a) disaggregated in the same
manner as information is disaggregated under section
1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1)(C)(i)).
SEC. 7. EVALUATION AND REPORT.
From the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 8, the Secretary shall reserve such sums as may be
necessary--
(1) to conduct an independent evaluation, by grant or by
contract, of the program carried out under this Act, which
shall include an assessment of the impact of the program on
high school graduation rates, college-going rates, and
student academic achievement; and
(2) to prepare and submit a report on the results of the
evaluation described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the
Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mrs.
Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Reid, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 766. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
provide more effective remedies of victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Paycheck
Fairness Act in recognition of Women's History Month. I'd like to thank
my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Boxer, Cantwell, Dodd,
Feingold, Klobuchar, Leahy, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Reid and
Schumer for joining me in reintroducing this legislation to prevent,
regulate and reduce pay discrimination for women across the country. I
also want to acknowledge Congresswoman DeLauro for being the champion
of this legislation in the House of Representatives.
As America celebrates Women's History Month, it's important that we
not only take pride in how far women have come in our lifetime, but
also recognize the work we must continue to achieve true pay equity in
this country. Over the past four decades, we have made tremendous
strides in closing the wage gap between women and men. But research
still shows us that pay discrimination continues to result in women
earning less than men for performing the same job.
Today, women working full time, year-round, still make only 77 cents
for every dollar that a man makes--meaning that for every $100 she
earns, a typical woman has $23 less to spend on groceries, housing,
child care, or other expenses. Women of color fare even worse: African-
American women earn only 67 cents, and Latinas only 56 cents, for every
$1.00 earned by white men.
Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled ``Women Post Job Gains, Data Show.'' The article showcased
proof of progress over the past decade. From the year 2000 through
2005, women posted a net increase of 1.7 million jobs paying above the
median salary, while men gained a net increase of just over 220,000 of
such positions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The issue
of the wage gap, however, continues to affect women workers. In 2005,
the median weekly pay for women
[[Page S2700]]
was $486, or 73 percent of that for men--$663.
While we often associate the pay wage with low-paying jobs, this
inequity is not exclusive to the lower class. The New York Times
recently reported that Wimbledon has finally agreed to pay its women
tennis champions the same amount of prize money as their male
counterparts. Last year's men's champion received $1.170 million, while
the tournament's women's winner got $1.117 million.
That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Paycheck Fairness
Act--a bill that will build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act and
help close the pay gap.
The Paycheck Fairness Act has three main components.
First, it prevents pay discrimination before it starts. By helping
women strengthen their negotiation skills and providing outreach and
technical assistance to employers to ensure they fairly evaluate and
pay their employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act gives employers the
tools they need to level the playing field between men and women.
Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act creates strong penalties to punish
those who do violate the act. By strengthening the penalties for
employers who violate the Equal Pay Act, this bill sends a strong
message--Equal Pay is a matter to be taken seriously.
And finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the Federal
Government, which should be a model employer when it comes to enforcing
Federal employment laws, uses every tool in its toolbox to ensure that
women are paid the same amount as men for doing the same jobs.
There is no question that we have come a long way since the Equal Pay
Act became law 44 years ago. But we still have a lot of work to do.
According to the National Committee on Pay Equity, working women
stand to lose $250,000 over the course of their career because of
unequal pay practices--a difference in pay that cannot be fully
explained by experience, education, or other qualifications. And the
pay gap follows women into retirement: unmarried women in the workforce
today will receive, on average, about $8,000 per year less in
retirement income than their male counterparts. As a result, millions
of American families lose out because equal pay is still not a reality.
It is my hope that many more of my colleagues will join me in
recognizing this is more than a women's issue--it is a family issue. It
is in all of our interests to allow women to support their families and
to live with the dignity and respect accorded to fully engaged members
of the workforce.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most profound economic shifts
of the past century has been the entry of women into the workforce in
tremendous numbers. In 1900, women made up only 18.4 percent of the
working population. Today, more than 46 percent of the workers who
claim a paycheck each week are women.
Unfortunately, while America's women are working harder than ever,
they are not being fairly compensated for their contributions to our
economy.
Discrimination against women continues to be prevalent in the
workplace. Women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and
the gap is even greater for women of color. In 2004, African-American
women earned only 67 percent of the earnings of White men, and Hispanic
women earned only 56 percent.
Unfortunately, the problem is not getting better. The current wage
gap of 23 cents is the same gap that existed in 2002. Since 1963, when
the Equal Pay Act was passed, the wage gap has narrowed by less than
half of a penny a year.
While many argue that this persistent pay gap is a consequence of
women's choosing to take time out of the workforce, the evidence shows
that other factors, including discrimination, are a significant cause.
In 2004, the Census Bureau concluded that the substantial gap in
earnings between men and women could not completely be explained by
differences in education, tenure in the workforce, or occupation.
Similarly, a recent General Accounting Office report concluded that the
difference in men and women's working patterns does not explain the
entire disparity in their wages. Discrimination plays a significant
role as well.
It is appalling and unacceptable that such discrimination still
exists in America, and we need to combat it with Federal legislation.
The issue is simple fairness, and Congress needs to act.
I am proud to join with Senator Clinton and Senator Harkin in
introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act today. This important legislation
will give America's working women the tools they need to fight for fair
pay. It will make sure our fair pay laws apply to everyone, and it will
strengthen the penalties for employers that are not playing by the
rules.
These important reforms are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to
stand up for working women and end wage discrimination by passing the
Paycheck Fairness Act.
______
By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Specter):
S. 767. A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
______
By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Specter):
S. 768. A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis
that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against
Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude
oil to the West.
The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the
price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per
gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock
market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of
inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.
Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight
savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new
Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum
reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average
Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for
automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.
At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to
increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company
predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result
of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled
the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to
27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3
million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy-
saving measure ever adopted.
Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump.
The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have
paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a-
day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion
annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the
Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as
well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin
Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil,
especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die
off.''
At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher,
CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing
deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so
quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.
Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by
opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise
to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate
would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American
jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that
[[Page S2701]]
has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled
our ability to increase fuel efficiency.
To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S.
on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators
Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the
Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by
establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per
gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise
and flexibility on how to meet those targets.
Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have
been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE
standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can
justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is
technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of
automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not
cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value
of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon
which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the
presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the
status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.
Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs
over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per
day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just
$2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018.
By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.
The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and
flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards
for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet
broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages
companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small
and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell
small cars.
In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced-
technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool
parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry
by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient
vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced
authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE
compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain
vehicle types and between manufacturers.
Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage
consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the
current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more
Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.
By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act
will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry
launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will
safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer
pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public
health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and
support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bills were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 767
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 ``Fuel Economy Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) United States dependence on oil imports imposes
tremendous burdens on the economy, foreign policy, and
military of the United States.
(2) According to the Energy Information Administration, 60
percent of the crude oil and petroleum products consumed in
the United States between April 2005 and March 2006
(12,400,000 barrels per day) were imported. At a cost of $75
per barrel of oil, people in the United States remit more
than $600,000 per minute to other countries for petroleum.
(3) A significant percentage of these petroleum imports
originate in countries controlled by regimes that are
unstable or openly hostile to the interests of the United
States. Dependence on production from these countries
contributes to the volatility of domestic and global markets
and the ``risk premium'' paid by consumers in the United
States.
(4) The Energy Information Administration projects that the
total petroleum demand in the United States will increase by
23 percent between 2006 and 2026, while domestic crude
production is expected to decrease by 11 percent, resulting
in an anticipated 28 percent increase in petroleum imports.
Absent significant action, the United States will become more
vulnerable to oil price increases, more dependent upon
foreign oil, and less able to pursue national interests.
(5) Two-thirds of all domestic oil use occurs in the
transportation sector, which is 97 percent reliant upon
petroleum-based fuels. Passenger vehicles, including light
trucks under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, represent
over 60 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector.
(6) Corporate average fuel economy of all cars and trucks
improved by 70 percent between 1975 and 1987. Between 1987
and 2006, fuel economy improvements have stagnated and the
fuel economy of the United States is lower than many
developed countries and some developing countries.
(7) Significant improvements in engine technology occurred
between 1986 and 2006. These advances have been used to make
vehicles larger and more powerful, and have not focused
solely on increasing fuel economy.
(8) According to a 2002 fuel economy report by the National
Academies of Science, fuel economy can be increased without
negatively impacting the safety of cars and trucks in the
United States. Some new technologies can increase both safety
and fuel economy (such as high strength materials, unibody
design, lower bumpers). Design changes related to fuel
economy also present opportunities to reduce the
incompatibility of tall, stiff, heavy vehicles with the
majority of vehicles on the road.
(9) Significant change must occur to strengthen the
economic competitiveness of the domestic auto industry.
According to a recent study by the University of Michigan, a
sustained gasoline price of $2.86 per gallon would lead
Detroit's Big 3 automakers' profits to shrink by
$7,000,000,000 as they absorb 75 percent of the lost vehicle
sales. This would put nearly 300,000 people in the United
States out of work.
(10) Opportunities exist to strengthen the domestic vehicle
industry while improving fuel economy. A 2004 study performed
by the University of Michigan concludes that providing
$1,500,000,000 in tax incentives over a 10-year period to
encourage domestic manufacturers and parts facilities to
produce clean cars will lead to a gain of nearly 60,000
domestic jobs and pay for itself through the resulting
increase in domestic tax receipts.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF AUTOMOBILE AND PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.
(a) Definition of Automobile.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 32901(a) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``rated at--''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``rated at not more than 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight.''.
(2) Fuel economy information.--Section 32908(a) of such
title is amended, by striking ``section--'' and all that
follows through ``(2)'' and inserting ``section, the term''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall apply to model year 2010 and each subsequent
model year.
(b) Definition of Passenger Automobile.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (16) of section 32901(a) of such
title is amended by striking ``, but does not include'' and
all that follows through the end and inserting a period.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to model year 2012 and each subsequent model
year.
SEC. 4. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.
(a) Standards.--Section 32902 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before
Model Year 2013'' after ``Non-Passenger Automobiles''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection
shall not apply to automobiles manufactured after model year
2012.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before
Model Year 2013'' after ``Passenger Automobiles'';
(B) by inserting ``and before model year 2010'' after
``1984''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ``Such standard
shall be increased by 4 percent per year for model years 2010
through 2012 (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon)'';
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Automobiles Manufactured After Model Year 2012.--
(1)(A) Not later than 18 months before the beginning of each
model year after model year 2012, the Secretary of
Transportation shall prescribe, by regulation--
[[Page S2702]]
``(i) an average fuel economy standard for automobiles
manufactured by a manufacturer in that model year; or
``(ii) based on 1 or more vehicle attributes that relate to
fuel economy--
``(I) separate average fuel economy standards for different
classes of automobiles; or
``(II) average fuel economy standards expressed in the form
of a mathematical function.
``(B)(i) Except as provided under paragraphs (3) and (4)
and subsection (d), average fuel economy standards under
subparagraph (A) shall attain a projected aggregate level of
average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for all
automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers for model year
2013.
``(ii) The projected aggregate level of average fuel
economy for model year 2014 and each model year thereafter
shall be increased by 4 percent over the level of the prior
model year (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon).
``(2) In addition to the average fuel economy standards
under paragraph (1), each manufacturer of passenger
automobiles shall be subject to an average fuel economy
standard for passenger automobiles manufactured by a
manufacturer in a model year that shall be equal to 92
percent of the average fuel economy projected by the
Secretary for all passenger automobiles manufactured by all
manufacturers in that model year. An average fuel economy
standard under this subparagraph for a model year shall be
promulgated at the same time as the standard under paragraph
(1) for such model year.
``(3) If the actual aggregate level of average fuel economy
achieved by manufacturers for each of 3 consecutive model
years is 5 percent or more less than the projected aggregate
level of average fuel economy for such model year, the
Secretary may make appropriate adjustments to the standards
prescribed under this subsection.
``(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) and
subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe
a lower average fuel economy standard for 1 or more model
years if the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the minimum standards prescribed under
paragraph (1)(B) or (3) or subsection (b) for each model
year--
``(i) are technologically not achievable;
``(ii) cannot be achieved without materially reducing the
overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the
United States and no offsetting safety improvements can be
practicably implemented for that model year; or
``(iii) is shown not to be cost effective.
``(B) If a lower standard is prescribed for a model year
under subparagraph (A), such standard shall be the maximum
standard that--
``(i) is technologically achievable;
``(ii) can be achieved without materially reducing the
overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the
United States; and
``(iii) is cost effective.
``(5) In determining cost effectiveness under paragraph
(4)(A)(iii), the Secretary of Transportation shall take into
account the total value to the United States of reduced
petroleum use, including the value of reducing external costs
of petroleum use, using a value for such costs equal to 50
percent of the value of a gallon of gasoline saved or the
amount determined in an analysis of the external costs of
petroleum use that considers--
``(A) value to consumers;
``(B) economic security;
``(C) national security;
``(D) foreign policy;
``(E) the impact of oil use--
``(i) on sustained cartel rents paid to foreign suppliers;
``(ii) on long-run potential gross domestic product due to
higher normal-market oil price levels, including inflationary
impacts;
``(iii) on import costs, wealth transfers, and potential
gross domestic product due to increased trade imbalances;
``(iv) on import costs and wealth transfers during oil
shocks;
``(v) on macroeconomic dislocation and adjustment costs
during oil shocks;
``(vi) on the cost of existing energy security policies,
including the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
``(vii) on the timing and severity of the oil peaking
problem;
``(viii) on the risk, probability, size, and duration of
oil supply disruptions;
``(ix) on OPEC strategic behavior and long-run oil pricing;
``(x) on the short term elasticity of energy demand and the
magnitude of price increases resulting from a supply shock;
``(xi) on oil imports, military costs, and related security
costs, including intelligence, homeland security, sea lane
security and infrastructure, and other military activities;
``(xii) on oil imports, diplomatic and foreign policy
flexibility, and connections to geopolitical strife,
terrorism, and international development activities;
``(xiii) on all relevant environmental hazards under the
jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency; and
``(xiv) on well-to-wheels urban and local air emissions of
`pollutants' and their uninternalized costs;
``(F) the impact of the oil or energy intensity of the
United States economy on the sensitivity of the economy to
oil price changes, including the magnitude of gross domestic
product losses in response to short term price shocks or long
term price increases;
``(G) the impact of United States payments for oil imports
on political, economic, and military developments in unstable
or unfriendly oil exporting countries;
``(H) the uninternalized costs of pipeline and storage oil
seepage, and for risk of oil spills from production,
handling, and transport, and related landscape damage; and
``(I) additional relevant factors, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(6) When considering the value to consumers of a gallon
of gasoline saved, the Secretary of Transportation may not
use a value that is less than the greatest of--
``(A) the average national cost of a gallon of gasoline
sold in the United States during the 12-month period ending
on the date on which the new fuel economy standard is
proposed;
``(B) the most recent weekly estimate by the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy of the
average national cost of a gallon of gasoline (all grades)
sold in the United States; or
``(C) the gasoline prices projected by the Energy
Information Administration for the 20-year period beginning
in the year following the year in which the standards are
established.
``(7) In prescribing standards under this subsection, the
Secretary may prescribe standards for 1 or more model years.
``(8)(A) Not later than December 31, 2016, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
submit a joint report to Congress on the state of global
automotive efficiency technology development, and on the
accuracy of tests used to measure fuel economy of automobiles
under section 32904(c), utilizing the study and assessment of
the National Academy of Sciences referred to in subparagraph
(B).
``(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into
appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the
technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and an
analysis and assessment of the accuracy of fuel economy tests
used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to measure fuel economy for each model under section
32904(c). Such analysis and assessment shall identify any
additional factors or methods that should be included in
tests to measure fuel economy for each model to more
accurately reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles. The
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall furnish, at the request
of the Academy, any information that the Academy determines
to be necessary to conduct the study, analysis, and
assessment under this subparagraph.
``(C) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) the study of the National Academy of Sciences
referred to in subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) an assessment by the Secretary of Transportation of
technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and
opportunities to increase overall fleet safety.
``(D) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
identify and examine additional opportunities to reform the
regulatory structure under this chapter, including approaches
that seek to merge vehicle and fuel requirements into a
single system that achieves equal or greater reduction in
petroleum use and environmental benefits than the amount of
petroleum use and environmental benefits that have been
achieved as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
``(E) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) include conclusions reached by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, as a result of detailed
analysis and public comment, on the accuracy of fuel economy
tests as in use during the period beginning on the date that
is 5 years before the completion of the report and ends on
the date of such completion;
``(ii) identify any additional factors that the
Administrator determines should be included in tests to
measure fuel economy for each model to more accurately
reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles; and
``(iii) include a description of options, formulated by the
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator, to
incorporate such additional factors in fuel economy tests in
a manner that will not effectively increase or decrease
average fuel economy for any automobile manufacturer.''; and
(4) in subsection (g)(2), by striking ``(and submit the
amendment to Congress when required under subsection (c)(2)
of this section)''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 329 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in section 32903--
(i) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears;
(ii) by striking ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title''
each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (c) or (d)
of section 32902'';
(iii) by striking subsection (e); and
(iv) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e); and
(B) in section 32904--
(i) in subsection (a)--
(I) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears; and
(II) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subject to'' and all
that follows through ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title''
and inserting ``subject to subsection (c) or (d) of section
32902''; and
[[Page S2703]]
(ii) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``under this
chapter'' and inserting ``under section 32902(c)(2)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to automobiles manufactured after model year
2012.
SEC. 5. CREDIT TRADING, COMPLIANCE, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Credit Trading.--Section 32903(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Credits earned by a manufacturer under
this section may be sold to any other manufacturer and used
as if earned by that manufacturer, except that credits earned
by a manufacturer described in clause (i) of section
32904(b)(1)(A) may only be sold to a manufacturer described
such clause (i) and credits earned by a manufacturer
described in clause (ii) of such section may only be sold to
a manufacturer described in such clause (ii).'' after ``earns
credits.'';
(2) by striking ``3 consecutive model years immediately''
each place it appears and inserting ``model years''; and
(3) effective for model years after 2012, the sentence
added by paragraph (1) of this subsection is amended by
inserting ``for purposes of compliance with section
32902(c)(2)'' after ``except that''.
(b) Multi-Year Compliance Period.--Section 32904(c) of such
title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Administrator''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary, by rule, may allow a manufacturer to
elect a multi-year compliance period of not more than 4
consecutive model years in lieu of the single model year
compliance period otherwise applicable under this chapter.''.
(c) Judicial Review of Regulations.--Section 32909(a)(1) of
such title is amended by striking out ``adversely affected
by'' and inserting ``aggrieved or adversely affected by, or
suffering a legal wrong because of,''.
____
S. 768
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 ``Fuel Economy Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) United States dependence on oil imports imposes
tremendous burdens on the economy, foreign policy, and
military of the United States.
(2) According to the Energy Information Administration, 60
percent of the crude oil and petroleum products consumed in
the United States between April 2005 and March 2006
(12,400,000 barrels per day) were imported. At a cost of $75
per barrel of oil, people in the United States remit more
than $600,000 per minute to other countries for petroleum.
(3) A significant percentage of these petroleum imports
originate in countries controlled by regimes that are
unstable or openly hostile to the interests of the United
States. Dependence on production from these countries
contributes to the volatility of domestic and global markets
and the ``risk premium'' paid by consumers in the United
States.
(4) The Energy Information Administration projects that the
total petroleum demand in the United States will increase by
23 percent between 2006 and 2026, while domestic crude
production is expected to decrease by 11 percent, resulting
in an anticipated 28 percent increase in petroleum imports.
Absent significant action, the United States will become more
vulnerable to oil price increases, more dependent upon
foreign oil, and less able to pursue national interests.
(5) Two-thirds of all domestic oil use occurs in the
transportation sector, which is 97 percent reliant upon
petroleum-based fuels. Passenger vehicles, including light
trucks under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, represent
over 60 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector.
(6) Corporate average fuel economy of all cars and trucks
improved by 70 percent between 1975 and 1987. Between 1987
and 2006, fuel economy improvements have stagnated and the
fuel economy of the United States is lower than many
developed countries and some developing countries.
(7) Significant improvements in engine technology occurred
between 1986 and 2006. These advances have been used to make
vehicles larger and more powerful, and have not focused
solely on increasing fuel economy.
(8) According to a 2002 fuel economy report by the National
Academies of Science, fuel economy can be increased without
negatively impacting the safety of cars and trucks in the
United States. Some new technologies can increase both safety
and fuel economy (such as high strength materials, unibody
design, lower bumpers). Design changes related to fuel
economy also present opportunities to reduce the
incompatibility of tall, stiff, heavy vehicles with the
majority of vehicles on the road.
(9) Significant change must occur to strengthen the
economic competitiveness of the domestic auto industry.
According to a recent study by the University of Michigan, a
sustained gasoline price of $2.86 per gallon would lead
Detroit's Big 3 automakers' profits to shrink by
$7,000,000,000 as they absorb 75 percent of the lost vehicle
sales. This would put nearly 300,000 people in the United
States out of work.
(10) Opportunities exist to strengthen the domestic vehicle
industry while improving fuel economy. A 2004 study performed
by the University of Michigan concludes that providing
$1,500,000,000 in tax incentives over a 10-year period to
encourage domestic manufacturers and parts facilities to
produce clean cars will lead to a gain of nearly 60,000
domestic jobs and pay for itself through the resulting
increase in domestic tax receipts.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF AUTOMOBILE AND PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.
(a) Definition of Automobile.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 32901(a) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``rated at--''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``rated at not more than 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight.''.
(2) Fuel economy information.--Section 32908(a) of such
title is amended, by striking ``section--'' and all that
follows through ``(2)'' and inserting ``section, the term''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall apply to model year 2010 and each subsequent
model year.
(b) Definition of Passenger Automobile.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (16) of section 32901(a) of such
title is amended by striking ``, but does not include'' and
all that follows through the end and inserting a period.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to model year 2012 and each subsequent model
year.
SEC. 4. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.
(a) Standards.--Section 32902 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before
Model Year 2013'' after ``Non-Passenger Automobiles''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection
shall not apply to automobiles manufactured after model year
2012.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before
Model Year 2013'' after ``Passenger Automobiles'';
(B) by inserting ``and before model year 2010'' after
``1984''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ``Such standard
shall be increased by 4 percent per year for model years 2010
through 2012 (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon)'';
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Automobiles Manufactured After Model Year 2012.--
(1)(A) Not later than 18 months before the beginning of each
model year after model year 2012, the Secretary of
Transportation shall prescribe, by regulation--
``(i) an average fuel economy standard for automobiles
manufactured by a manufacturer in that model year; or
``(ii) based on 1 or more vehicle attributes that relate to
fuel economy--
``(I) separate average fuel economy standards for different
classes of automobiles; or
``(II) average fuel economy standards expressed in the form
of a mathematical function.
``(B)(i) Except as provided under paragraphs (3) and (4)
and subsection (d), average fuel economy standards under
subparagraph (A) shall attain a projected aggregate level of
average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for all
automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers for model year
2013.
``(ii) The projected aggregate level of average fuel
economy for model year 2014 and each model year thereafter
shall be increased by 4 percent over the level of the prior
model year (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon).
``(2) In addition to the average fuel economy standards
under paragraph (1), each manufacturer of passenger
automobiles shall be subject to an average fuel economy
standard for passenger automobiles manufactured by a
manufacturer in a model year that shall be equal to 92
percent of the average fuel economy projected by the
Secretary for all passenger automobiles manufactured by all
manufacturers in that model year. An average fuel economy
standard under this subparagraph for a model year shall be
promulgated at the same time as the standard under paragraph
(1) for such model year.
``(3) If the actual aggregate level of average fuel economy
achieved by manufacturers for each of 3 consecutive model
years is 5 percent or more less than the projected aggregate
level of average fuel economy for such model year, the
Secretary may make appropriate adjustments to the standards
prescribed under this subsection.
``(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) and
subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe
a lower average fuel economy standard for 1 or more model
years if the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the minimum standards prescribed under
paragraph (1)(B) or (3) or subsection (b) for each model
year--
``(i) are technologically not achievable;
``(ii) cannot be achieved without materially reducing the
overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the
United States and no offsetting safety improvements can be
practicably implemented for that model year; or
``(iii) is shown not to be cost effective.
``(B) If a lower standard is prescribed for a model year
under subparagraph (A), such standard shall be the maximum
standard that--
[[Page S2704]]
``(i) is technologically achievable;
``(ii) can be achieved without materially reducing the
overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the
United States; and
``(iii) is cost effective.
``(5) In determining cost effectiveness under paragraph
(4)(A)(iii), the Secretary of Transportation shall take into
account the total value to the United States of reduced
petroleum use, including the value of reducing external costs
of petroleum use, using a value for such costs equal to 50
percent of the value of a gallon of gasoline saved or the
amount determined in an analysis of the external costs of
petroleum use that considers--
``(A) value to consumers;
``(B) economic security;
``(C) national security;
``(D) foreign policy;
``(E) the impact of oil use--
``(i) on sustained cartel rents paid to foreign suppliers;
``(ii) on long-run potential gross domestic product due to
higher normal-market oil price levels, including inflationary
impacts;
``(iii) on import costs, wealth transfers, and potential
gross domestic product due to increased trade imbalances;
``(iv) on import costs and wealth transfers during oil
shocks;
``(v) on macroeconomic dislocation and adjustment costs
during oil shocks;
``(vi) on the cost of existing energy security policies,
including the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
``(vii) on the timing and severity of the oil peaking
problem;
``(viii) on the risk, probability, size, and duration of
oil supply disruptions;
``(ix) on OPEC strategic behavior and long-run oil pricing;
``(x) on the short term elasticity of energy demand and the
magnitude of price increases resulting from a supply shock;
``(xi) on oil imports, military costs, and related security
costs, including intelligence, homeland security, sea lane
security and infrastructure, and other military activities;
``(xii) on oil imports, diplomatic and foreign policy
flexibility, and connections to geopolitical strife,
terrorism, and international development activities;
``(xiii) on all relevant environmental hazards under the
jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency; and
``(xiv) on well-to-wheels urban and local air emissions of
`pollutants' and their uninternalized costs;
``(F) the impact of the oil or energy intensity of the
United States economy on the sensitivity of the economy to
oil price changes, including the magnitude of gross domestic
product losses in response to short term price shocks or long
term price increases;
``(G) the impact of United States payments for oil imports
on political, economic, and military developments in unstable
or unfriendly oil exporting countries;
``(H) the uninternalized costs of pipeline and storage oil
seepage, and for risk of oil spills from production,
handling, and transport, and related landscape damage; and
``(I) additional relevant factors, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(6) When considering the value to consumers of a gallon
of gasoline saved, the Secretary of Transportation may not
use a value that is less than the greatest of--
``(A) the average national cost of a gallon of gasoline
sold in the United States during the 12-month period ending
on the date on which the new fuel economy standard is
proposed;
``(B) the most recent weekly estimate by the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy of the
average national cost of a gallon of gasoline (all grades)
sold in the United States; or
``(C) the gasoline prices projected by the Energy
Information Administration for the 20-year period beginning
in the year following the year in which the standards are
established.
``(7) In prescribing standards under this subsection, the
Secretary may prescribe standards for 1 or more model years.
``(8)(A) Not later than December 31, 2016, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
submit a joint report to Congress on the state of global
automotive efficiency technology development, and on the
accuracy of tests used to measure fuel economy of automobiles
under section 32904(c), utilizing the study and assessment of
the National Academy of Sciences referred to in subparagraph
(B).
``(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into
appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the
technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and an
analysis and assessment of the accuracy of fuel economy tests
used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to measure fuel economy for each model under section
32904(c). Such analysis and assessment shall identify any
additional factors or methods that should be included in
tests to measure fuel economy for each model to more
accurately reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles. The
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall furnish, at the request
of the Academy, any information that the Academy determines
to be necessary to conduct the study, analysis, and
assessment under this subparagraph.
``(C) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) the study of the National Academy of Sciences
referred to in subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) an assessment by the Secretary of Transportation of
technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and
opportunities to increase overall fleet safety.
``(D) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
identify and examine additional opportunities to reform the
regulatory structure under this chapter, including approaches
that seek to merge vehicle and fuel requirements into a
single system that achieves equal or greater reduction in
petroleum use and environmental benefits than the amount of
petroleum use and environmental benefits that have been
achieved as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
``(E) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) include conclusions reached by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, as a result of detailed
analysis and public comment, on the accuracy of fuel economy
tests as in use during the period beginning on the date that
is 5 years before the completion of the report and ends on
the date of such completion;
``(ii) identify any additional factors that the
Administrator determines should be included in tests to
measure fuel economy for each model to more accurately
reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles; and
``(iii) include a description of options, formulated by the
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator, to
incorporate such additional factors in fuel economy tests in
a manner that will not effectively increase or decrease
average fuel economy for any automobile manufacturer.''; and
(4) in subsection (g)(2), by striking ``(and submit the
amendment to Congress when required under subsection (c)(2)
of this section)''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 329 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in section 32903--
(i) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears;
(ii) by striking ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title''
each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (c) or (d)
of section 32902'';
(iii) by striking subsection (e); and
(iv) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e); and
(B) in section 32904--
(i) in subsection (a)--
(I) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears; and
(II) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subject to'' and all
that follows through ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title''
and inserting ``subject to subsection (c) or (d) of section
32902''; and
(ii) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``under this
chapter'' and inserting ``under section 32902(c)(2)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to automobiles manufactured after model year
2012.
SEC. 5. CREDIT TRADING, COMPLIANCE, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Credit Trading.--Section 32903(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Credits earned by a manufacturer under
this section may be sold to any other manufacturer and used
as if earned by that manufacturer, except that credits earned
by a manufacturer described in clause (i) of section
32904(b)(1)(A) may only be sold to a manufacturer described
such clause (i) and credits earned by a manufacturer
described in clause (ii) of such section may only be sold to
a manufacturer described in such clause (ii).'' after ``earns
credits.'';
(2) by striking ``3 consecutive model years immediately''
each place it appears and inserting ``model years''; and
(3) effective for model years after 2012, the sentence
added by paragraph (1) of this subsection is amended by
inserting ``for purposes of compliance with section
32902(c)(2)'' after ``except that''.
(b) Multi-Year Compliance Period.--Section 32904(c) of such
title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Administrator''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary, by rule, may allow a manufacturer to
elect a multi-year compliance period of not more than 4
consecutive model years in lieu of the single model year
compliance period otherwise applicable under this chapter.''.
(c) Judicial Review of Regulations.--Section 32909(a)(1) of
such title is amended by striking out ``adversely affected
by'' and inserting ``aggrieved or adversely affected by, or
suffering a legal wrong because of,''.
SEC. 6. CONSUMER TAX CREDIT.
(a) Elimination on Number of New Qualified Hybrid and
Advanced Lean Burn Technology Vehicles Eligible for
Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 30B of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (f); and
(B) by redesignating subsections (g) through (j) as
subsections (f) through (i), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraphs (4) and (6) of section 30B(h) of such Code
are each amended by striking ``(determined without regard to
subsection (g))'' and inserting ``determined without regard
to subsection (f))''.
(B) Section 38(b)(25) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 30B(g)(1)'' and inserting ``section 30B(f)(1)''.
[[Page S2705]]
(C) Section 55(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 30B(g)(2)'' and inserting ``section 30B(f)(2)''.
(D) Section 1016(a)(36) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 30B(h)(4)'' and inserting ``section 30B(g)(4)''.
(E) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 30B(h)(9)'' and inserting ``section 30B(g)(9)''.
(b) Extension of Alternative Vehicle Credit for New
Qualified Hybrid Motor Vehicles.--Paragraph (3) of section
30B(i) of such Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011''.
(c) Computation of Credit.--Section 30B of such Code is
amended by striking ``city'' each place it appears and
inserting ``combined''.
(d) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsections
(a) and (b) of this section shall apply to property placed in
service after December 31, 2007, in taxable years ending
after such date. The amendments made by subsection (c) shall
apply to vehicles acquired after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 7. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MOTOR VEHICLES MANUFACTURING
CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 30D. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MOTOR VEHICLES MANUFACTURING
CREDIT.
``(a) Credit Allowed.--There shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
an amount equal to 35 percent of the qualified investment of
an eligible taxpayer for such taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Investment.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The qualified investment for any taxable
year is equal to the incremental costs incurred during such
taxable year--
``(A) to re-equip, expand, or establish any manufacturing
facility in the United States of the eligible taxpayer to
produce advanced technology motor vehicles or to produce
eligible components,
``(B) for engineering integration performed in the United
States of such vehicles and components as described in
subsection (d),
``(C) for research and development performed in the United
States related to advanced technology motor vehicles and
eligible components, and
``(D) for employee retraining with respect to the
manufacturing of such vehicles or components (determined
without regard to wages or salaries of such retrained
employees).
``(2) Attribution rules.--In the event a facility of the
eligible taxpayer produces both advanced technology motor
vehicles and conventional motor vehicles, or eligible and
non-eligible components, only the qualified investment
attributable to production of advanced technology motor
vehicles and eligible components shall be taken into account.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Advanced technology motor vehicle.--The term
`advanced technology motor vehicle' means--
``(A) any qualified electric vehicle (as defined in section
30(c)(1)),
``(B) any new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle (as defined
in section 30B(b)(3)),
``(C) any new advanced lean burn technology motor vehicle
(as defined in section 30B(c)(3)),
``(D) any new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30B(d)(2)(A) and determined without regard to any
gross vehicle weight rating),
``(E) any new qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle (as
defined in section 30B(e)(4), including any mixed-fuel
vehicle (as defined in section 30B(e)(5)(B)), and
``(F) any other motor vehicle using electric drive
transportation technology (as defined in paragraph (3)).
``(2) Electric drive transportation technology.--The term
`electric drive transportation technology' means technology
used by vehicles that use an electric motor for all or part
of their motive power and that may or may not use off-board
electricity, such as battery electric vehicles, fuel cell
vehicles, engine dominant hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid fuel cell
vehicles.
``(3) Eligible components.--The term `eligible component'
means any component inherent to any advanced technology motor
vehicle, including--
``(A) with respect to any gasoline or diesel-electric new
qualified hybrid motor vehicle--
``(i) electric motor or generator;
``(ii) power split device;
``(iii) power control unit;
``(iv) power controls;
``(v) integrated starter generator; or
``(vi) battery;
``(B) with respect to any hydraulic new qualified hybrid
motor vehicle--
``(i) accumulator or other energy storage device;
``(ii) hydraulic pump;
``(iii) hydraulic pump-motor assembly;
``(iv) power control unit; and
``(v) power controls;
``(C) with respect to any new advanced lean burn technology
motor vehicle--
``(i) diesel engine;
``(ii) turbo charger;
``(iii) fuel injection system; or
``(iv) after-treatment system, such as a particle filter or
NOx absorber; and
``(D) with respect to any advanced technology motor
vehicle, any other component submitted for approval by the
Secretary.
``(4) Eligible taxpayer.--The term `eligible taxpayer'
means any taxpayer if more than 20 percent of the taxpayer's
gross receipts for the taxable year is derived from the
manufacture of motor vehicles or any component parts of such
vehicles.
``(d) Engineering Integration Costs.--For purposes of
subsection (b)(1)(B), costs for engineering integration are
costs incurred prior to the market introduction of advanced
technology vehicles for engineering tasks related to--
``(1) establishing functional, structural, and performance
requirements for component and subsystems to meet overall
vehicle objectives for a specific application,
``(2) designing interfaces for components and subsystems
with mating systems within a specific vehicle application,
``(3) designing cost effective, efficient, and reliable
manufacturing processes to produce components and subsystems
for a specific vehicle application, and
``(4) validating functionality and performance of
components and subsystems for a specific vehicle application.
``(e) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(1) the sum of--
``(A) the regular tax liability (as defined in section
26(b)) for such taxable year, plus
``(B) the tax imposed by section 55 for such taxable year
and any prior taxable year beginning after 1986 and not taken
into account under section 53 for any prior taxable year,
over
``(2) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and
sections 27, 30, and 30B for the taxable year.
``(f) Reduction in Basis.--For purposes of this subtitle,
if a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this paragraph) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so allowed.
``(g) No Double Benefit.--
``(1) Coordination with other deductions and credits.--
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount of any
deduction or other credit allowable under this chapter for
any cost taken into account in determining the amount of the
credit under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of
such credit attributable to such cost.
``(2) Research and development costs.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
any amount described in subsection (b)(1)(C) taken into
account in determining the amount of the credit under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not be taken into
account for purposes of determining the credit under section
41 for such taxable year.
``(B) Costs taken into account in determining base period
research expenses.--Any amounts described in subsection
(b)(1)(C) taken into account in determining the amount of the
credit under subsection (a) for any taxable year which are
qualified research expenses (within the meaning of section
41(b)) shall be taken into account in determining base period
research expenses for purposes of applying section 41 to
subsequent taxable years.
``(h) Business Carryovers Allowed.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) for a taxable year exceeds the
limitation under subsection (e) for such taxable year, such
excess (to the extent of the credit allowable with respect to
property subject to the allowance for depreciation) shall be
allowed as a credit carryback to each of the 15 taxable years
immediately preceding the unused credit year and as a
carryforward to each of the 20 taxable years immediately
following the unused credit year.
``(i) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section, rules
similar to the rules of section 179A(e)(4) and paragraphs (1)
and (2) of section 41(f) shall apply.
``(j) Allocation of Credit to Purchasers.--
``(1) Election to allocate.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an eligible taxpayer, any
portion of the credit determined under subsection (a) for the
taxable year may, at the election of such taxpayer, be
apportioned among purchasers of qualifying vehicles from the
taxpayer in the taxable year (or in any year in which the
credit may be carried over).
``(B) Qualifying vehicles.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualifying vehicle' means an advanced
technology vehicle manufactured at a facility described in
subsection (b)(1)(A).
``(C) Form and effect of election.--An election under
subparagraph (A) for any taxable year shall be made on a
timely filed return for such year. Such election, once made,
shall be irrevocable for such taxable year.
``(2) Treatment of taxpayer and purchasers.--The amount of
the credit apportioned to any purchaser under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall not be included in the amount determined under
subsection (a) with respect to the eligible taxpayer for the
taxable year; and
``(B) shall be treated as an amount determined under
subsection (a) for the taxable year of the purchaser which
ends in the calendar year of purchase.
``(3) Special rules for decrease in credits for taxable
year.--If the amount of the
[[Page S2706]]
credit of an eligible taxpayer determined under subsection
(a) for a taxable year is less than the amount of such credit
shown on the return of the taxpayer for such year, an amount
equal to the excess of--
``(A) such reduction, over
``(B) the amount not apportioned to such purchasers under
paragraph (1) for the taxable year,
shall be treated as an increase in tax imposed by this
chapter on the eligible taxpayer.
``(4) Written notice to purchasers.--If any portion of the
credit available under subsection (a) is allocated to
purchasers under paragraph (1), the eligible taxpayer shall
provide any purchaser receiving an allocation written notice
of the amount of the allocation. Such notice may be provided
either at the time of purchase or at any time not later than
60 days after the close of the calendar year in which the
vehicle is purchased.''
``(k) Election Not to Take Credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any property if the taxpayer
elects not to have this section apply to such property.
``(l) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of this
section.
``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
qualified investment after December 31, 2011.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (36), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (37) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(38) to the extent provided in section 30D(g).''.
(2) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by inserting
``30D(k),'' after ``30C(e)(5),''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 30C the
following new item:
``Sec. 30D. Advanced technology motor vehicles manufacturing credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts incurred in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1999.
______
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Allard):
S. 769. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to ensure that participants in the Troops to Teachers program may
teach at a range of eligible schools; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Troops to
Teachers Improvement Act of 2007, which will help more of our veterans
and service members find second careers in our classrooms. This bill
will expand the accessibility of this program, so that more military
personnel will be able to enroll, receive $5,000 toward their teaching
certification, and teach in a school near their home. I am proud to be
joined by Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, and Senator Allard in
introducing this legislation. On the House side, Congressman Petri and
Congresswoman Matsui have introduced a companion to this bill.
Since it was created in 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has
helped place over 10,000 new teachers in classrooms around the country.
The program provides guidance, teacher certification assistance, and
bonuses for military personnel who give at least three years of service
in the classroom.
When Congress established the Troops to Teachers program, it created
two levels of bonuses for military personnel and veterans who
participate. An individual was eligible for a $5,000 stipend so long as
he or she taught in any school in a district that received Title I
funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This meant
that an individual could teach three years in any of a vast majority of
schools in the country and still be eligible for the $5,000 bonus.
Congress allowed a person to receive an additional $5,000 if he or
she taught three years in a school that served a high percentage of
disadvantaged students. The total bonus of $10,000 was meant to draw
these talented new teachers into schools that needed them most.
For over a decade, this bonus structure was highly successful. In
Colorado alone, the program has provided around 80 new hires a year to
schools where new teachers are desperately needed.
But in 2005, the Department of Education limited the number of
schools that were eligible to participate and therefore made it more
difficult for individuals to receive the baseline $5,000 bonus. The
Department of Education was able to do this because when the Troops to
Teachers program was reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act,
there was a mistake in the reauthorization language that created
confusion about which schools an individual may teach in order to be
eligible for the $5,000 bonus. As I pointed out a moment ago, when
Congress created the Troops to Teachers program, it said that an
individual could receive the bonus if he or she taught in a ``high-
need'' school, that is, in any school in a district that received Title
1 funding. In Colorado, that meant that around 98 percent of school
districts qualified. But, because Troops to Teachers was mistakenly
placed in a section of NCLB with a different definition of ``high
need,'' an individual can now only receive the $5,000 bonus if he or
she teaches in a school that has more than 10,000 students or has more
than 20 percent of its students from families below the poverty line.
As a result of this change, enrollments in the Troops to Teachers
program have dwindled over the past two years. Western and rural
States, in particular, have been negatively impacted. In Colorado, new
hires out of Troops to Teachers have dropped from 79 for the 2003-2004
school year to 43 for the 2006-2007 school year.
This drop-off in new hires from Troops to Teachers is problematic for
several reasons. First, we should be finding ways of attracting new
teachers to our classrooms, not devising bureaucratic barriers that
keep them out. Experts predict that we will need approximately 2
million new teachers in the next decade, and we need teachers who will
give more than a year or two of service. Today, half of newcomers to
the teaching profession last less than five years. The good news is
that Troops to Teachers has an 83 percent retention rate for its
teachers. A full 223 of the 343 original participants are still
teaching today, more than a decade after the program's creation.
Troops to Teachers also helps fill a need for diversity in the
classroom--83 percent of program participants are male, compared to 18
percent of teachers nationally, and 37 percent are ethnic minorities,
compared to 15 percent of teachers nationally.
The second problem with the new eligibility criteria is that it
disproportionately hurts rural veterans and rural school districts.
It's hard to find a school district in western Colorado or on the
eastern plains that has 10,000 students. Are we expecting a Troops to
Teacher participant living in Yuma County, population 9,789 to drive to
Denver to teach in an eligible school there so they can receive the
$5,000 stipend?
The third problem with the new criteria is that it hurts retiring
service members who want to pursue a second career in education. This
country has a long history of providing educational benefits to our men
and women in uniform through the 1944 GI Bill and successive
legislation. Troops to Teachers furthers this great cause by helping
our men and women in uniform extend their education and earn a teaching
certificate. With over 1.3 million veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan,
many of whom are currently transitioning back to civilian life, we have
an opportunity to bring the best and the brightest who are now serving
in the military straight into the classrooms, where they can continue
to extend their service to their country.
The bill I'm introducing today provides a simple fix to the problems
that arose for the Troops to Teachers program under the No Child Left
Behind Act. The bill simply says that if there is no school within 50
miles of the home of a Troops to Teachers participant, the individual
may teach in any school in a district that receives Title 1 funding and
receive the initial $5,000 bonus. This bill will allow thousands of
retiring service members in rural communities to take advantage of the
Troops to Teachers incentives and transition to a second career in the
classroom. I also want to point out that this bill still prioritizes
schools that fit the current definition of ``high need''--that is,
schools with over 10,000 students or with 20 percent of its students
from families below the poverty line--but it also provides an outlet if
there are no schools in the area that fit those criteria. This bill
does not affect the additional bonus that Troops to Teachers
participants have always
[[Page S2707]]
been able to receive if they teach in a school with a high percentage
of disadvantaged students.
I am hopeful that when we reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act,
we take another look at Troops to Teachers to help make it more
accessible to veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, National Guard
members, and reservists. Troops to Teachers is a good program that
should be strengthened and supported when it is reauthorized. Yet, we
shouldn't wait until then to fix this needless problem that is
hampering the program's effectiveness today. I urge my colleagues to
support this problem, today, by supporting the quick, straightforward
solution that this bill provides.
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. 769
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 ``Troops to Teachers
Improvement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER TROOPS TO TEACHERS PROGRAM.
Section 2304 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6674) is amended in subsection (a)(1)(B)
by striking ``for not less than 3 school years'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``for not less than 3 school years, to begin the
school year after obtaining that certification or licensing,
with a high-need local educational agency or public charter
school, as such terms are defined in section 2101 or, if
there is no high-need local educational agency or public
charter school for which the member is qualified to teach
within a 50-mile radius of the member's residence, then under
circumstances covered by section 2302(b)(2).''.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Carper, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 771. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to improve
the nutrition and health of schoolchildren by updating the definition
of ``food of minimal nutritional value'' to conform to current
nutrition science and to protect the Federal investment in the national
school lunch and breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of
the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to
growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just
affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as
well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today
will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority
children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At
the same time, since 1963, rates of obesity have quadrupled among
children ages 6 to 11 and tripled among children ages 12 to 19. Even
our youngest children are not immune. Since 1971, among children ages 2
to 5, obesity rates have tripled.
There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and
accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as
well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been
inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive
nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability
office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle
schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending
machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it
is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are
being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our
schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute
nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually
detrimental to them.
Not only does the overconsumption of these foods take a toll on the
health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the
investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year
the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools
for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program
and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these
meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines
for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government.
However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these
guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods
typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it
undermines the nearly $10 billion in federal reimbursements that we
spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.
Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food
in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and
authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and
balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents
would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending
machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to
restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools
provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and
development.
What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food
free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does
it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar
for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the
expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch
program?
Today, along with my colleague Senator Murkowski of Alaska, I will
introduce bipartisan legislation to address this problem--and to do
what is right for the health of our kids. This bill has broad support
in both the education and the public health communities and is
supported by the National PTA, the National Education Association, the
American Federation of Teachers, the American Medical Association, the
Center for Science in the Public Interest, the School Nutrition
Association, the Food Research and Action Center, the American Heart
Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes
Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others.
The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007
does two very simple but important things:
First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a
rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in
schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard
that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated,
children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that
time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between
poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up
with the science.
Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the
updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the
school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a
very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the
actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child
only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a lunch
consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a loophole
that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck through--
literally. It is time to close it.
The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of
Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Murkowski of
Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator
Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator
Schumer of New York, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator Carper
of Delaware. The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts across
ideological lines and shows that when the health of our children is at
stake, we can put aside our differences in the interest of our
children.
This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and
rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it
is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable
chronic diseases--the current
[[Page S2708]]
generation of children could very well be the first in American history
to live shorter lives than their parents. If this isn't a wake up call,
I don't know what is.
Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am
pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch
Protection Act of 2007.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Vitter,
and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 772. A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide
expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are
contrary to the public interest with respect to railroads; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Antitrust
Subcommittee, I believe it is my role to investigate and help end--
monopolistic practices that exploit American consumers. In that spirit,
I rise today to introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Coleman,
Feingold, Vitter and Rockefeller, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement
Act of 2007. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust
exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition.
Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under the exemptions
my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four Class I
railroads providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail
transportation. The lack of competition was recently documented in a
Government Accountability Office October 2006 report. That report found
that, ``concerns about competition and captivity, in the rail industry,
remain as traffic is concentrated in fewer railroads.'' The report also
stated that the Surface Transportation Board, the entity charged with
ensuring that the industry remains competitive, has failed to do so. In
August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District sent a
letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and
asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed.
The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of
``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the
past several years, these captive shippers faced spiking rail rates.
They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by
the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are
forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately,
to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust
law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads
are protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of
antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.
These exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in
Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A
coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations--
Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf
River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are feeling the
crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent
increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to
raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and
affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin
consumers feel the pinch.
And similar stories exist across the country. That is why I'm joining
with my colleagues to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act
of 2007. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of
free competition like all other businesses.
The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad
industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antirust enforcers.
Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are
reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that
engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law.
Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board
are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination
of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will
eliminate these exemptions.
No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent
decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--
deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the
Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions
remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the
rules of fair competition.
Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the
purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, State
attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-
competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of
these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It
will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad
common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad
collective ratemaking. It will allow State attorneys general and other
private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive
relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that
leads to excessive and unreasonable rates.
In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust
exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of
the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools
to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads.
Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to
deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.
It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's
freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in
industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust
laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end
monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high.
The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads
to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal,
a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or
ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the
antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in
this industry today. I urge my colleagues to support the Railroad
Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007.
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. 772
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 ``Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.
The proviso in section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 26)
ending with ``Code.'' is amended to read as follows:
``Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed
to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association,
except the United States, to bring suit for injunctive relief
against any common carrier that is not a railroad subject to
the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board under
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code.''.
SEC. 3. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS.
The sixth undesignated paragraph of section 7 of the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18) is amended to read as follows:
``Nothing contained in this section shall apply to
transactions duly consummated pursuant to authority given by
the Secretary of Transportation, Federal Power Commission,
Surface Transportation Board (except for agreements described
in section 10706 of title 49, United States Code, and
transactions described in section 11321 of that title), the
Securities and Exchange Commission in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 10 (of the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935), the United States Maritime Commission,
or the Secretary of Agriculture under any statutory provision
vesting such power in the Commission, Board, or Secretary.''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.
The Clayton Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
``Sec. 29. In any civil action against a common carrier
railroad under section 4, 4C, 15, or 16 of this Act, the
district court shall not be required to defer to the primary
jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board.''.
SEC. 5. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Clayton Act.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to
jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first
semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for
agreements described in section
[[Page S2709]]
10706 of that title and transactions described in section
11321 of that title);''.
(b) FTC Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44(a)(1)) is amended by striking
``common carriers subject'' and inserting ``common carriers,
except for railroads, subject''.
SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF TREBLE DAMAGES TO RAIL COMMON CARRIERS.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15) is amended by--
(1) redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(2) inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to common carriers by rail
subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation
Board under subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code,
without regard to whether such railroads have filed rates or
whether a complaint challenging a rate has been filed.''.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS IN TITLE 49.
(a) In General.--Section 10706 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),'' and all that follows through
``or carrying out the agreement'' in the third sentence;
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking the second sentence; and
(ii) by striking ``However, the'' in the third sentence and
inserting ``The''; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, and the antitrust
laws set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection do not
apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or
carrying out the agreement''; and
(2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a
proposed agreement described in subsection (a) from the
application of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of
the Wilson Tariff Act (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June
19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing
any such proposed agreement for the purpose of any provision
of law described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other
reviewing agency shall take into account, among any other
considerations, the impact of the proposed agreement on
shippers, on consumers, and on affected communities.''.
(b) Combinations.--Section 11321 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``The authority'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``Except as provided in sections 4 (15 U.S.C. 15),
4C (15 U.S.C. 15c), section 15 (15 U.S.C. 25), and section 16
(15 U.S.C. 26) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 21(a)), the
authority''; and
(B) by striking ``is exempt from the antitrust laws and
from all other law,'' in the third sentence and inserting
``is exempt from all other law (except the antitrust laws
referred to in subsection (c)),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a
transaction described in subsection (a) from the application
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act
(15 U.S.C. 8-9), or the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13,
13a, 13b, 21a).
``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing
any such transaction for the purpose of any provision of law
described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other reviewing
agency shall take into account, among any other
considerations, the impact of the transaction on shippers and
on affected communities.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for section 10706 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``RATE
AGREEMENTS''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the chapter
analysis at the beginning of chapter 107 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``10706. Rate agreements.''.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of subsection
(b), this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Conditions.--
(1) Previous conduct.--A civil action under section 4, 15,
or 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 25, 26) or complaint
under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 45) may not be filed with respect to any conduct or
activity that occurred prior to the date of enactment of this
Act that was previously exempted from the antitrust laws as
defined in section 1 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12) by
orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Surface
Transportation Board issued pursuant to law.
(2) Grace period.--A civil action or complaint described in
paragraph (1) may not be filed earlier than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act with respect to any
previously exempted conduct or activity or previously
exempted agreement that is continued subsequent to the date
of enactment of this Act.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my
colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and
Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of
2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal
loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered
ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since
before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at
the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our
antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers,
to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders
in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to
the detriment of the consumer.
The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses,
employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight
where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long
captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface
Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will
make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace.
In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the
country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of
competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as
a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust
exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which
virtually all other American corporations are required to operate,
railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers
over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as
coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products.
Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are
forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many
manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and
abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The
bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that
if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our
electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying
higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to
have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as
industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production
in the state, or to leave it altogether.
How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a
shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt
from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and
pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board
(STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise
influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties
cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in
would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law,
railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive
practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses
from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has
experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially
deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to
modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service.
Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so-
called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what
the market would normally bear.
Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter
exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the
Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review
mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring
legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove
antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new
properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies
across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General
and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of
antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive
and unreasonable
[[Page S2710]]
rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private parties to sue for
court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand the jurisdiction
of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the railroad
industry.
By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the
protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail
industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides
toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by
Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However,
because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater
protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others,
later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy
legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the
responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the
Staggers Act.
For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek
redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the
glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace
have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in
the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to
negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in
the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West
Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country.
I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act
of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem
that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the
Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer
is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take
heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Snowe, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Sununu):
S. 773. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums
on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental
premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the
severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit program (FEHBP)
premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and
military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums
with pre-tax dollars.
Access to affordable health care is a critical issue for everyone.
While Federal employees enjoy the ability to choose among a wide
variety of health plans to best suit their needs, substantial increases
in FEHBP premiums threaten to make health insurance coverage cost
prohibitive for many Federal employees, their dependents, and Federal
retirees.
In response to these cost increases, a Presidential directive issued
in 2000 extended premium conversion to current Federal employees who
participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Premium
conversion allows individuals to pay their health insurance premiums
with pre-tax dollars. It is a benefit already available to many private
sector employees and State and local government employees. While
premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP
premium, it helps to offset some of the cost by reducing an
individual's Federal tax liability. Regrettably, our retired civil
servants, who pay the same premiums as Federal employees, do not have
this same opportunity.
Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the
tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This
legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.
Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our
Nation's military retirees to assist them with increasing health care
costs.
A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees,
including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the
Military Coalition, have come out strongly in support of this bill.
My support for this legislation spans four Congresses. In the 109th
Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan
support with 64 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation
will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to
join me in supporting this critical legislation and to show their
support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military
retirees. 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. 773
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PRETAX PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY
FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 125 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Health insurance premiums of federal civilian and
military retirees.--
``(A) FEHBP premiums.--Nothing in this section shall
prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an
annuitant, as defined in paragraph (3) of section 8901, title
5, United States Code, with respect to a choice between the
annuity or compensation referred to in such paragraph and
benefits under the health benefits program established by
chapter 89 of such title 5.
``(B) TRICARE premiums.--Nothing in this section shall
prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an
individual receiving retired or retainer pay by reason of
being a member or former member of the uniformed services of
the United States with respect to a choice between such pay
and benefits under the health benefits programs established
by chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS.
(a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional
itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by
redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting
after section 223 the following new section:
``SEC. 224. TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS OR ENROLLMENT FEES.
``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an
individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction the amounts
paid during the taxable year by the taxpayer for insurance
purchased as supplemental coverage to the health benefits
programs established by chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and
dependents.
``(b) Coordination With Medical Deduction.--Any amount
allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) shall not be
taken into account in computing the amount allowable to the
taxpayer as a deduction under section 213(a).''.
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes
Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross
income) is amended by redesignating paragraph (19) (as added
by section 703(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004)
as paragraph (20) and by inserting after paragraph (20) (as
so redesignated) the following new paragraph:
``(21) TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.--
The deduction allowed by section 224.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the
following new items:
``Sec. 224. TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.
``Sec. 225. Cross reference.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) FEHBP Premium Conversion Option for Federal Civilian
Retirees.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall take such actions as the Director considers necessary
so that the option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning
with the first open enrollment period, afforded under section
8905(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code, which begins not
less than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(b) TRICARE Premium Conversion Option for Military
Retirees.--The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with
the other administering Secretaries (as specified in section
1073 of title 10, United States Code), shall take such
actions as the Secretary considers necessary so that the
option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning with the
first open enrollment period
[[Page S2711]]
afforded under health benefits programs established under
chapter 55 of such title, which begins not less than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Leahy, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Obama, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 774. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State
residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien
students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the
United States as children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. 774
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 ``Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007'' or the ``DREAM Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001).
(2) Uniformed services.--The term ``uniformed services''
has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of title
10, United States Code.
SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY
FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1623) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal under subsection (a) shall
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).
SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF
CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE
UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.
(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who
Entered the United States as Children.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary
of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the
status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an
alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United
States, if the alien demonstrates that--
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years
immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and
had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of
initial entry;
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character
since the time of application;
(C) the alien--
(i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E),
or (10)(C) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)); and
(ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (2), or (4)
of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a));
(D) the alien, at the time of application, has been
admitted to an institution of higher education in the United
States, or has earned a high school diploma or obtained a
general education development certificate in the United
States; and
(E) the alien has never been under a final administrative
or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal,
unless the alien--
(i) has remained in the United States under color of law
after such order was issued; or
(ii) received the order before attaining the age of 16
years.
(2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary
of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility
under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of
section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or
family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
(3) Procedures.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
provide a procedure by regulation allowing eligible
individuals to apply affirmatively for the relief available
under this subsection without being placed in removal
proceedings.
(b) Termination of Continuous Period.--For purposes of this
section, any period of continuous residence or continuous
physical presence in the United States of an alien who
applies for cancellation of removal under this section shall
not terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear
under section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1229(a)).
(c) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--
(1) In general.--An alien shall be considered to have
failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United
States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from
the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for
any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.
(2) Extensions for exceptional circumstances.--The
Secretary of Homeland Security may extend the time periods
described in paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that the
failure to timely return to the United States was due to
exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances
determined sufficient to justify an extension should be no
less compelling than serious illness of the alien, or death
or serious illness of a parent, grandparent, sibling, or
child.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.--Nothing in this
section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on
the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of
removal or adjustment of status under this section.
(e) Regulations.--
(1) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall publish proposed regulations implementing this
section. Such regulations shall be effective immediately on
an interim basis, but are subject to change and revision
after public notice and opportunity for a period for public
comment.
(2) Interim, final regulations.--Within a reasonable time
after publication of the interim regulations in accordance
with paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
publish final regulations implementing this section.
(f) Removal of Alien.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
may not remove any alien who has a pending application for
conditional status under this Act.
SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Conditional basis for status.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, and except as provided in section 6,
an alien whose status has been adjusted under section 4 to
that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
shall be considered to have obtained such status on a
conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section.
Such conditional permanent resident status shall be valid for
a period of 6 years, subject to termination under subsection
(b).
(2) Notice of requirements.--
(A) At time of obtaining permanent residence.--At the time
an alien obtains permanent resident status on a conditional
basis under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall provide for notice to the alien regarding the
provisions of this section and the requirements of subsection
(c) to have the conditional basis of such status removed.
(B) Effect of failure to provide notice.--The failure of
the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide a notice under
this paragraph--
(i) shall not affect the enforcement of the provisions of
this Act with respect to the alien; and
(ii) shall not give rise to any private right of action by
the alien.
(b) Termination of Status.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
terminate the conditional permanent resident status of any
alien who obtained such status under this Act, if the
Secretary determines that the alien--
(A) ceases to meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or
(C) of section 4(a)(1);
(B) has become a public charge; or
(C) has received a dishonorable or other than honorable
discharge from the uniformed services.
(2) Return to previous immigration status.--Any alien whose
conditional permanent resident status is terminated under
paragraph (1) shall return to the immigration status the
alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional
permanent resident status under this Act.
(c) Requirements of Timely Petition for Removal of
Condition.--
(1) In general.--In order for the conditional basis of
permanent resident status obtained by an alien under
subsection (a) to be removed, the alien must file with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in accordance with paragraph
(3), a petition which requests the removal of such
conditional basis and which provides, under penalty of
perjury, the facts and information so that the Secretary may
make the determination described in paragraph (2)(A).
(2) Adjudication of petition to remove condition.--
(A) In general.--If a petition is filed in accordance with
paragraph (1) for an alien, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall make a determination as to whether the alien
meets the requirements set out in subparagraphs (A) through
(E) of subsection (d)(1).
(B) Removal of conditional basis if favorable
determination.--If the Secretary determines that the alien
meets such requirements, the Secretary shall notify the alien
of such determination and immediately remove the conditional
basis of the status of the alien.
[[Page S2712]]
(C) Termination if adverse determination.--If the Secretary
determines that the alien does not meet such requirements,
the Secretary shall notify the alien of such determination
and terminate the conditional permanent resident status of
the alien as of the date of the determination.
(3) Time to file petition.--An alien may petition to remove
the conditional basis to lawful resident status during the
period beginning 180 days before and ending 2 years after
either the date that is 6 years after the date of the
granting of conditional permanent resident status or any
other expiration date of the conditional permanent resident
status as extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security in
accordance with this Act. The alien shall be deemed in
conditional permanent resident status in the United States
during the period in which the petition is pending.
(d) Details of Petition.--
(1) Contents of petition.--Each petition for an alien under
subsection (c)(1) shall contain information to permit the
Secretary of Homeland Security to determine whether each of
the following requirements is met:
(A) The alien has demonstrated good moral character during
the entire period the alien has been a conditional permanent
resident.
(B) The alien is in compliance with section 4(a)(1)(C).
(C) The alien has not abandoned the alien's residence in
the United States. The Secretary shall presume that the alien
has abandoned such residence if the alien is absent from the
United States for more than 365 days, in the aggregate,
during the period of conditional residence, unless the alien
demonstrates that alien has not abandoned the alien's
residence. An alien who is absent from the United States due
to active service in the uniformed services has not abandoned
the alien's residence in the United States during the period
of such service.
(D) The alien has completed at least 1 of the following:
(i) The alien has acquired a degree from an institution of
higher education in the United States or has completed at
least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a
bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States.
(ii) The alien has served in the uniformed services for at
least 2 years and, if discharged, has received an honorable
discharge.
(E) The alien has provided a list of each secondary school
(as that term is defined in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) that
the alien attended in the United States.
(2) Hardship exception.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in
the Secretary's discretion, remove the conditional status of
an alien if the alien--
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the
inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph
(1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien's removal from the United
States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent, or child
who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United
States.
(B) Extension.--Upon a showing of good cause, the Secretary
of Homeland Security may extend the period of conditional
resident status for the purpose of completing the
requirements described in paragraph (1)(D).
(e) Treatment of Period for Purposes of Naturalization.--
For purposes of title III of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), in the case of an alien who is
in the United States as a lawful permanent resident on a
conditional basis under this section, the alien shall be
considered to have been admitted as an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence and to be in the United
States as an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence. However, the conditional basis must be
removed before the alien may apply for naturalization.
SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE BENEFITS UNDER THIS ACT.
If, on the date of enactment of this Act, an alien has
satisfied all the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through
(E) of section 4(a)(1) and section 5(d)(1)(D), the Secretary
of Homeland Security may adjust the status of the alien to
that of a conditional resident in accordance with section 4.
The alien may petition for removal of such condition at the
end of the conditional residence period in accordance with
section 5(c) if the alien has met the requirements of
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 5(d)(1) during the
entire period of conditional residence.
SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for
relief under this Act, except where the alien has been placed
into deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings either
prior to or after filing an application for relief under this
Act, in which case the Attorney General shall have exclusive
jurisdiction and shall assume all the powers and duties of
the Secretary until proceedings are terminated, or if a final
order of deportation, exclusion, or removal is entered the
Secretary shall resume all powers and duties delegated to the
Secretary under this Act.
(b) Stay of Removal of Certain Aliens Enrolled in Primary
or Secondary School.--The Attorney General shall stay the
removal proceedings of any alien who--
(1) meets all the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B),
(C), and (E) of section 4(a)(1);
(2) is at least 12 years of age; and
(3) is enrolled full time in a primary or secondary school.
(c) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant
to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United
States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing
minimum age for employment.
(d) Lift of Stay.--The Attorney General shall lift the stay
granted pursuant to subsection (b) if the alien--
(1) is no longer enrolled in a primary or secondary school;
or
(2) ceases to meet the requirements of subsection (b)(1).
SEC. 8. PENALTIES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN APPLICATION.
Whoever files an application for relief under this Act and
willfully and knowingly falsifies, misrepresents, or conceals
a material fact or makes any false or fraudulent statement or
representation, or makes or uses any false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent
statement or entry, shall be fined in accordance with title
18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.
SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
officer or employee of the United States may--
(1) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant
to an application filed under this Act to initiate removal
proceedings against any persons identified in the
application;
(2) make any publication whereby the information furnished
by any particular individual pursuant to an application under
this Act can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than an officer or employee of the
United States Government or, in the case of applications
filed under this Act with a designated entity, that
designated entity, to examine applications filed under this
Act.
(b) Required Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide the information
furnished under this section, and any other information
derived from such furnished information, to--
(1) a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection
with an investigation or prosecution of an offense described
in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 212(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), when such information
is requested in writing by such entity; or
(2) an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively
identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such
individual is deceased as a result of a crime).
(c) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits
information to be examined in violation of this section shall
be fined not more than $10,000.
SEC. 10. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS; PROHIBITION ON
FEES.
Regulations promulgated under this Act shall provide that
applications under this Act will be considered on an
expedited basis and without a requirement for the payment by
the applicant of any additional fee for such expedited
processing.
SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance
provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that
of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be
eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV
(20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.),
subject to the requirements of such parts.
(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title
IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of
such part.
(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.),
subject to the requirements for such services.
SEC. 12. GAO REPORT.
Not later than seven years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives setting forth--
(1) the number of aliens who were eligible for cancellation
of removal and adjustment of status under section 4(a);
(2) the number of aliens who applied for adjustment of
status under section 4(a);
(3) the number of aliens who were granted adjustment of
status under section 4(a); and
(4) the number of aliens whose conditional permanent
resident status was removed under section 5.
______
By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr.
Coleman):
S. 775. A bill to establish a National Commission on the
Infrastructure of the United States; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I join my good friend, Sen. George
Voinovich, in introducing a bill to study the current state and future
needs of our national infrastructure, including rail, airports,
wastewater
[[Page S2713]]
treatment facilities, waterways and levees.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion
is needed over a five-year period to bring the Nation's infrastructure
to a good condition. Clearly, we need to look at our needs and find a
better way to maintain the infrastructure we have, while meeting new
demand--all in a way that is fiscally sustainable.
Last Congress, during the debate about the surface transportation
reauthorization, we discussed the problems facing our roadways. Poor
road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion per year in repairs and
operating costs and 3.5 billion hours a year in traffic. Over 27
percent of the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete. While transit use increased faster than any
other mode of transportation--up 21 percent--between 1993 and 2002, the
Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed
annually to maintain conditions.
In Delaware, while population growth grew a robust 23 percent from
1990 to 2003, vehicle travel on our highways increased 38 percent. And
driving on roads in need of repair cost Delaware motorists $160 million
a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. To take a look at
what must be done to maintain our highways and transit as well as
address future needs, and ways to pay for all of that, Congress created
a commission to study these issues in SAFETEA-LU and report back to
Congress with recommendations.
But there are more types of infrastructure in need of attention than
just highways and transit. Air travel has reportedly surpassed pre-
September 11, 2001, levels and is projected to grow 4.3 percent
annually through 2015. Aging wastewater management systems discharge
billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each
year. And the EPA estimates that $390 billion over the next 20 years
will be needed to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet
increasing demands.
Further, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints
and delays, as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50
percent by 2020 and intercity passenger rail ridership has increased to
approximately 25 million a year. To accommodate both freight and
passenger rail demand, $12-13 billion a year in investments will be
needed.
After Hurricane Katrina led to the failure of floodwalls in New
Orleans, Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to inspect other flood
control structures to identify other repair needs. The Corps found that
146 levees in 28 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are
in danger of failing.
In Delaware, vehicle travel on our highways has increased 38 percent
from 1990 to 2003, costing Delaware motorists $160 million a year in
extra vehicle repairs and operating costs--$273 per motorist. Delaware
also has $304 million in drinking water infrastructure needs over the
next 20 years and $288 million in wastewater infrastructure needs.
Understanding the problem and plotting a plan of attack are essential
for attracting and maintaining business and investment in our economy
and communities. The legislation we are proposing today would give the
National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States until
February 15, 2009, to complete a study of the Nation's infrastructure,
in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies
as well as private sector stakeholders. The Commission would study the
age and condition of public infrastructure, the capacity to sustain
current and anticipated economic development, the methods used to
finance public infrastructure, and the return to the economy from
public works investment.
Many times, when we debate infrastructure needs, people simply call
for additional funds. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is losing confidence
in the way we invest their tax dollars. Failures, like the floodwalls
in New Orleans, harm confidence in the government's ability to protect
communities from natural disasters. The fact that we've made no changes
to the Corps' flood control program in the wake of that catastrophic
failure has further damaged government credibility.
Increasing traffic in spite of the investment of billions of dollars
every year in highways and bridges reduces confidence in government's
ability to address traffic congestion. Failure to invest in rail while
both freight usage and passenger ridership is at all time highs makes
the taxpayer doubt that government is spending their tax dollars
according to the needs of the people.
Part of the solution is, likely, greater funding. But the American
people need to be confident in the products we provide before they are
going to sign a check for more funding. That is why the Commission will
study innovative financing, such as tax-credit bonds and private
investment. But also, the Commission will study the impact of State and
local governments' land use and economic development decisions on
Federal infrastructure costs, and provide Congress with some insight as
to how the various levels of government can better coordinate to gain
greater efficiencies from our infrastructure investment.
Stronger coordination, greater investment and creativity are the keys
to maintaining our infrastructure and investing in future needs--as
well as a healthy and robust economy. I look forward to guidance from
this Commission as to how Congress can better do just that.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 777. A bill to repeal the imposition of withholding on certain
payments made to vendors by government entities; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Withholding
Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would repeal Section 511 of the Tax
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.
Last year, Congress answered Americans' calls for tax relief when it
passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The
lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative
minimum tax exemption amounts--contained in the legislation assisted
small businesses, encouraged the kind of investment that creates jobs
and makes our economy grow, and ensured fairer tax treatment for
middle-income families who would otherwise be left picking up the bill
for a tax intended for the wealthy.
Alongside these essential tax relief provisions, however, conferees
quietly inserted Section 511, a last-minute $7 billion tax penalty on
government contractors, into the bill. Thus, the bill, whose aim was
``tax increase prevention,'' actually raised taxes. On the same day the
President signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act
into law, I introduced the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006 and made
good on my promise to work to repeal Section 511. Today, I am renewing
that promise.
Section 511--the largest revenue-raiser by far in the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act--imposes a sweeping new 3 percent tax
withholding on all government payments for products and services made
by the Federal Government, State governments, and local governments
with expenditures of $100 million or more. It affects payments for
goods and services under government contracts and payments to any
person for a service or product provided to a government entity--for
example, Medicare and certain grants--beginning in 2011.
Section 511 will not close the tax gap--or the difference between
what American taxpayers owe and what they actually pay--as proponents
of the provision argue. Section 511 is estimated to ``increase''
revenue by $7 billion from 2011 to 2015, but raises $6 billion of that
amount due solely to accelerated tax receipts and not an actual revenue
increase from tax compliance. It generates only $215 million in 2012
and increases slightly in each of the three years thereafter hardly the
$290 billion annual tax gap the IRS estimates. Further, Section 511 is
based on revenues from government payments with no relationship to a
company's taxable income or tax liability. Section 511 hurts honest
taxpaying businesses without providing any additional enforcement
mechanisms for tax delinquents.
Section 511's costs to businesses are substantial. Although
proponents of Section 511 call the 3 percent withholding rate ``low''
and ``conservative,'' in most cases, businesses make substantially less
than 3 percent profit on their contracts and sometimes, turn no profit
at all. Section 511 will effectively withhold entire paychecks--
interest free--thereby impeding the cash
[[Page S2714]]
flow of small businesses, eliminating funds that can be used for
reinvestment in the business, and forcing companies to pass on the
added costs to customers or finance the additional amount.
Section 511 will also impose significant administrative costs on the
Federal, State, and local governments--costs so high, in fact, that the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the provision constitutes an
unfunded mandate on the state and local governments. The projected
costs of Section 511, says CBO, will far exceed the allowable $50
million annual threshold.
More than the costs to government, though, Section 511 stands to
negatively impact nearly every sector of the economy--from health care
and technology to building and transportation--and there is already
talk of expanding the provision's reach and accelerating its effective
date. What there wasn't talk of, though--at the inception of Section
511--was the provision itself. Congress never debated the merits of an
expanded withholding requirement--as a revenue-raiser or as a way to
narrow the tax gap--in a committee or on either chamber's floor. If it
had, Congress would have realized that it does neither of these things
well. Section 511 is the start of years of bad tax policy. We can do
better than this, and I urge my colleagues to join me in working to
repeal this unfair tax penalty.
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. 777
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN
PAYMENTS MADE TO VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES.
The amendment made by section 511 of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such
amendment had never been enacted.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Sanders):
S. 778. A bill to amend title IV of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 in order to authorize the Secretary of Education
to award competitive grants to eligible entities to recruit, select,
train, and support Expanded Learning and After-School Fellows that will
strengthen expanded learning initiatives, 21st century community
learning center programs, and after-school programs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teaching
Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act to tap the idealism,
energy, and talent of 2-year and 4-year college graduates to serve as
teaching fellows in our Nation's highest need schools.
The Act will establish a new cadre of talented leaders to establish,
expand or improve expanded learning initiatives, 21st century community
learning center programs and after-school programs. These programs will
build essential academic and youth development skills for all students
in targeted grade levels in expanded-day programs. They will also
assist teachers during the school day in linking the school curriculum
more closely with after school programming.
As we know most Olympic athletes train harder when a gold medal is in
sight. Employees work overtime when a business launches a breakthrough
product. Communities rally to provide material relief and comfort when
natural disasters strike. When success matters most, increased effort
is essential for achieving a worthy goal, and that fundamental
principle can work in education too.
The time has come for the Nation to go the extra mile to meet our
education goals and ensure that all children develop the skills they
need to participate fully in our economy and in the civic life of their
communities. If students are to learn more--the core premise of the No
Child Left Behind Act--they must have more time to meet these
expectations.
Teaching Fellows recruited under this bill will receive intensive
training by experienced high-quality after-school programs and will
serve for two years. The Act will also enable Teaching Fellows to
pursue a bachelor's or graduate degree in education, in order to give
communities a pipeline of leaders ready for future involvement in
education and youth development.
For the most part, reform efforts to date have equated education
reform with school reform. As a result our attention has been focused
on the 1,000 hours a year children are in school, while largely
overlooking the 4,000 hours a year when children are awake and out of
school.
Teachers must, of course, remain at the heart of our strategy to
improve education. But they need help. We need to expand learning time,
involve caring adults in the lives of children, and make learning more
relevant and engaging, especially for students who are struggling.
The school calendar today is largely a relic of the agrarian age. It
fails to respond to the realities that students must develop new skills
for modem needs, and that in most families, parents are working during
many of the after-school hours. Fourteen million children come back to
empty homes after school. Voters across party lines, demographic
groups, and geographic areas have said for 5 consecutive years that
they overwhelmingly support after-school programs for all. Police
chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors overwhelmingly agree that investing in
after-school programs is more effective in reducing youth violence and
crime than hiring more police officers or stiff penalties. Diverting
less than one percent of at-risk youth from a life of crime would save
society several times the cost of the after-school programs. It is time
for a new learning day to dawn in our country. Our communities and our
citizens need to waken to clear call for involvement and investment in
this aspect of public education.
The Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act draws
on the impressive experience of after-school programs and schools that
have developed, and tested these ideas and shown they can work. The Act
is inspired by the Teaching Fellowship Program created by Citizen
Schools, a national network of after-school programs with a track
record of significant impact on academic achievement. A rigorous, long-
term evaluation has shown that such students outperform their peers on
six out of seven measures of school success.
The Act also draws on the superb work of LA's BEST and After-School
All-Stars, as well as the experience and innovations of other schools
and programs across the country.
Under the Act, the Department of Education will make grants to
partnerships between local education agencies and strong community
organizations, institutions of higher education, and community learning
centers. These partnerships will recruit and place Teaching Fellows to
work full-time in high-need schools that serve low-income students.
Grants from the Department of Education will be at least $15,000 per
Fellow annually, so that recipients can recruit, select, train, and
support the Fellows. Fellows will also be able to earn a national
service education award for each term of service. Partnerships will be
required to obtain non-federal matching funds to leverage the federal
government's investment and to involve the private sector in expanding
these educational opportunities.
Expanded learning time and after-school programs are the new frontier
of education reform in America. Teaching Fellows recruited under the
Act will complement the outstanding efforts of classroom teachers and
infuse new energy, talent, and idealism in the after-school sector.
They will also be an essential resource for the nation's parents,
encouraging students to understand their potential and helping them to
see the true promise of the American Dream.
This bill is supported by thirty-seven groups representing education
and after-school communities. I ask unanimous consent that their
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S2715]]
National Collaboration for Youth,
February 16, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Hon. Richard Burr,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: The National
Collaboration for Youth is writing to express its support of
the Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and After-School
(T-FELAS) Act.
T-FELAS will establish a new service teacher corps and
expands learning and enrichment opportunities targeted
towards the hours after the school day ends. As a group that
focuses on youth, and particularly at-risk youth, we know the
need for expanded learning and positive youth development
experiences in the hours after school. We also know the
importance of developing the next generation of youth
workers, skilled in youth development practices and viewing
public service and youth work as a career, and this bill will
strive to do just that.
We applaud the inclusion of youth development language,
especially the training in youth development for the Fellows,
and acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive
through both two- and four-year institutions of higher
education that provide accredited coursework in youth
development. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation of T-
FELAS programs, implementing the interagency reach of the
Federal Youth Development Council as a place to disseminate
best practices will continue to move the field forward.
We look forward to working with your office and the staff
of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as
this bill progresses towards enactment. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if we can be of any assistance.
Thank you for your leadership, and public service.
Sincerely,
America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Marguerite
Kondracke, President and CEO, American Humanics Inc.,
Kala M. Stroup Ph.D, President, Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America, Judy Vredenburgh, President and
CEO, Camp Fire USA, Jill Pasewalk, President and CEO,
Communities In Schools, Inc., Daniel Cardinali,
President, First Focus, Bruce Lesley, President,
Leadership & Renewal Outfitters, Janet R. Wakefield,
President and CEO, MENTOR/National Mentoring
Partnership, Gail Manza, Executive Director, National
4-H Council, Donald T. Floyd, Jr., President and CEO,
National Collaboration for Youth, Irv Katz, President
and CEO, National Network For Youth, Victoria Wagner,
President and CEO, Search Institute, Peter M. Benson,
Ph.D President and CEO, Youth Service America, Steven
A. Culbertson, President and CEO.
____
National AfterSchool Association,
March 5, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions,
Hon. Richard Burr,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: On behalf of the
National AfterSchool Association, I am pleased to offer our
support for the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and
After-School (T-FELAS) Act of 2007. We appreciate your
attention to, and support for, the need for quality
afterschool programs and for attracting young professionals
to the field.
By creating a cadre of talented young people to serve as
Fellows in expanded-day and afterschool programs, the T-FELAS
Act will help ensure that such programs are infused with
well-educated front-line staff who can support students in
activities that will enhance their development and success in
school. The Fellowships and opportunities to pursue
additional education should help attract graduates interested
in afterschool work, but who might not be able to enter the
field without such supports.
Research shows that more highly-educated and well-trained
staff who understand how children develop are the key to high
quality afterschool programs. As the leading voice of the
afterschool profession, representing over 9,000 afterschool
practitioners, administrators, and policymakers, we at the
National AfterSchool Association applaud this creative
approach to bringing talented new workers into the field. We
look forward to working with you both on this initiative and
on approaches to address the larger issues of overall
compensation and training levels in the field that make long-
term retention of staff difficult for afterschool programs.
Thank you again for your leadership in ensuring that well-
trained and supportive adults are available to enhance the
lives of our young people.
Sincerely yours,
Judith N. Nee,
President and CEO.
____
Voices For National Service,
February 23, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Voices for National
Service, we are writing to thank you for sponsoring the
Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After School Act
of 2007. This legislation addresses a critical need in
communities across our country and offers an exciting
opportunity to expand national service.
The T-FELAS Act will recruit outstanding college graduates
to become Teaching Fellows and to serve in schools and after-
school programs that serve low-income students. Through their
service, Teaching Fellows will take their first steps along a
pathway of service and educational leadership. These dynamic,
aspiring educators will earn Segal AmeriCorps Education
Awards which will support them as they go on to careers as
classroom teachers and after-school leaders. Their experience
in linking in-school and after-school learning will play a
critical role in advancing academic achievement and expanding
educational opportunity.
Voices for National Service is a coalition of national
service organizations and state commissions from across the
country that provide direct services to communities in need,
matching the talents of committed citizens with service
opportunities in schools, community centers, senior homes,
health clinics, and national parks and recreation areas.
Collectively, we reach thousands of Americans in need every
day. We are excited to support this important initiative and
look forward to contributing to its success. The T-FELAS Act
will strengthen public education, create a powerful pipeline
of future educational leaders, and move students in schools
across the country toward the American Dream of college and
career opportunity.
Sincerely,
Karen Baker, Executive Director, California Volunteers;
Michael Brown, CEO, City Year, Nelda Brown, Executive
Director, National Service-Learning Partnership; Kyle
Caldwell, President & CEO, ConnectMichigan Alliance;
AnnMaura Connolly, Senior Vice President, City Year;
Calvin George, National Director, National Association
of Community Health Centers; Jacqueline Johnson,
Executive Director, Connecticut Commission for
Volunteer Services; Marsha Meeks Kelly, Executive
Director, Mississippi Commission for Volunteer Service;
Marguerite Kondracke, President & CEO, America's
Promise; Michelle Nunn, CEO, Hands On Network; Sally
Prouty, President, The Corps Network, Eric Schwarz,
President, Citizen Schools; Dorothy Stoneman,
President, YouthBuild USA; Marty Weinstein,
Chairperson, California AmeriCorps Alliance.
____
Illinois Center for Violence
Prevention,
February 15, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: We are writing to express its support
of the Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and After-School
(T-FELAS) Act, which will establish a new service teacher
corps and expands learning and enrichment opportunities
targeted towards the hours after the school day ends.
The Illinois Center for Violence Prevention (ICVP) is a
leader on the issue of out-of-school time programs in the
state of Illinois. We have long supported strategies to
enhance the quality of out-of-schoo1 time services, since
high quality programs are able to provide extended learning
opportunities and positive youth development experiences for
our youth. ICVP coordinates the Illinois After-school
Partnership, co-chaired by our state's Department of Human
Services and our State Board of Education. The Partnership is
working on policy and program enhancements to increase the
quality and availability of out-of-school-time opportunities.
The Partnership has been examining the professional
development needs of the current and future workforce for
this field, and is participating in a state-wide effort to
increase career pathways for youth workers.
The T-FELAS Act will be a valuable and needed tool that
will help develop the next generation of youth workers,
versed in essential youth development skills, and who view
public service and youth work as a career. We applaud the
inclusion of youth development language, especially the
training in youth development for the Fellows, and
acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive through
both two- and four-year institutions of higher education that
provide accredited coursework in youth development.
Thank you for your public service and leadership on this
issue. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of
any assistance.
Sincerely,
Debbie Bretag,
Executive Director.
____
Afterschool Alliance,
February 16, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: The Afterschool
Alliance is very pleased to have the opportunity to express
our support for the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning
and After-School Act of 2007 (T-FELAS). This legislation will
expand the federal government's interest in and support for
afterschool programs that keep kids safe, improve academic
achievement, and
[[Page S2716]]
support working families by investing in quality initiatives.
On behalf of the advocates, afterschool providers,
researchers and parents that make up the Alliance network,
thank you for your longstanding support for our goal of
Afterschool for All.
Just as having a highly qualified teacher in the classroom
leads to student success, having well trained, skilled
leadership in afterschool programs ensures that the programs
provided contribute to children's academic and social
development and give young people the opportunities that will
assure their college and workplace readiness in the future.
The T-FELAS program will provide partnerships that offer
afterschool programs, including the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, the chance to expand the quality and
capacity of services offered in targeted communities. It will
give individuals the financial support they need to pursue
careers in the afterschool field and to put their training
and talents to use serving children and families that need
their help most.
The Alliance endorses this legislation and looks forward to
working with you in the future to translate our common vision
of high quality afterschool and expanded learning
opportunities for all into reality.
Sincerely,
Jodi Grant,
Executive Director.
____
First Focus,
February 16, 2007.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: First Focus is
pleased to endorse the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning
and After-School Act of 2007 (T-FELAS).
Quality after-school programs are critical for the nation's
young people. After-school programs keep children safe and
productive while their parents are at work; however, less
than half of parents of 6- to 17-year-olds say there are
enough affordable afterschool programs according to a recent
study conducted for America's Promise--The Alliance for
Youth.
T-FELAS will help to not only expand after-school
opportunities for young people, but it will also help to
ensure that new and existing after-school opportunities are
of high quality. We appreciate the emphasis placed on
positive youth development in your legislation, as well as
your inclusion of an independent evaluation and the
dissemination of best practices through the Federal Youth
Development Council. These measures will strengthen outcomes
for children and help to ensure that after-school programs
throughout the country benefit from the lessons learned by
the Expanded Learning and After-School Fellows.
First Focus is a new bipartisan advocacy organization that
seeks to make children and their families the first focus of
federal budget and policy decisions. T-FELAS is an important
way to do so. We are pleased to support your efforts and look
forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Bruce Lesley,
President.
____
Next Generation Youth Work
Coalition,
February 16, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: The Next Generation
Youth Work Coalition is writing to express its support of the
Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and After-School (T-
FELAS) Act
T-FELAS will establish a new service teacher corps and
expand learning and enrichment opportunities targeted towards
the hours after the school day ends. Both of these are much
needed improvements that will help ensure that children and
youth have the supports they need to succeed.
The Next Generation Youth Work Coalition is a group of
individuals and organizations dedicated to developing a
strong, diverse after-school and youth development workforce
that is stable, prepared, supported and committed to the
well-being and empowerment of children and youth, and
particularly at-risk youth. We know the need for expanded
learning and positive youth development experiences in the
hours after school. We know the importance of developing the
next generation of youth workers, skilled in youth
development practices and viewing public service and youth
work as a career. Our research shows that those who chose to
work come from varied backgrounds but share a common belief--
that they can make a difference.
We applaud the inclusion of youth development language,
especially the training in youth development for the Fellows,
and acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive
through both two- and four-year institutions of higher
education that provide accredited coursework in youth
development. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation of T-
FELAS programs, implementing the interagency reach of the
Federal Youth Development Council as a place to disseminate
best practices will continue to move the field forward.
We look forward to supporting your office and the staff of
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as this
bill progresses towards enactment. Please do not hesitate to
contact Pam Garza if we can be of any assistance:
[email protected] or (202) 347-2080 x15.
Thank you for your leadership on behalf of the youth in our
nation.
Sincerely,
Karen Pittman,
Co-Chair.
Pam Garza,
Co-Chair.
Deb Crai,
Co-Chair.
____
February 19, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Burr: On behalf of the
board and staff of the Johns Hopkins University Center for
Summer Learning, it is my pleasure to express our support for
the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School
(T-FELAS) bill.
This important legislation would enhance out-of-school time
learning opportunities for young people, and provide a new
mechanism for recruiting and retaining teachers and staff for
such programs. By offering fellowships to recent college
graduates who work in after-school and summer programs
serving Title I students, the bill would dramatically enhance
the quality and amount of learning opportunities available
for disadvantaged students. The program would result in a 25-
30% increase in the time students spend engaged in learning
and improve a wide range of developmental outcomes for youth.
In addition, the legislation would create a talented new
group of educators who specialize in motivating young people
to learn outside the traditional classroom. The fellows who
participate in the program will provide critical linkages
between the school day and after-school programs and become
dynamic future leaders in the field of education and youth
development.
Thank you so much for supporting this legislation and
please feel free to contact me directly at (410) 516-6221 if
we can provide any assistance to this effort.
Sincerely,
Ron Fairchild,
Executive Director,
Center for Summer Learning.
____
February 15, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing in support of the
Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After School Act
of 2007. The T-FELAS Act addresses a critical need for
schools, communities, and working families.
It will dramatically strengthen after-school and expanded
learning time programs and make them full partners in
restoring the promise of educational opportunity for all
children.
Teachers in our schools are doing their best, but America's
traditional 6-hour school day is obsolete. Our students need
more learning time, more caring adults involved in their
learning, and more relevant, hands-on learning activities
that inspire and motivate them.
At Citizen Schools, we have seen firsthand the impact that
Teaching Fellows can make. Citizen Schools operates a
national network of after-school programs that advance
student achievement and mobilize adult volunteers to teach
hands-on apprenticeship courses. Our programs blend real-
world learning projects with rigorous academic and leadership
development activities, preparing students in the middle
grades for success in high school, college, the workforce,
and civic life. Citizen Schools currently serves 3,000
students and engages 2,400 volunteers in California,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas. In
Massachusetts our programs operate in Boston, Lowell, Malden,
New Bedford, Worcester, and Springfield.
Citizen Schools works intensively with low-income students,
most of whom are struggling academically. A rigorous
independent evaluation has reported that Citizen Schools'
students significantly out-performed a matched comparison
group on key metrics of school success and advancement,
including grades and standardized test scores.
The Teaching Fellowship program that Citizen Schools has
piloted attracts dynamic, aspiring educators and community
builders to careers in education. In the morning our Fellows
support classroom teachers and in the afternoon they serve as
front-line teachers and team leaders at our after-school
programs. Teaching Fellows also have the opportunity to earn
a Master's Degree in Education, preparing them for careers as
teachers and educational leaders.
[[Page S2717]]
Teaching Fellows have been the crucial factor in delivering
powerful results for our students.
The T-FELAS Act will advance the achievement of our
neediest students and open new horizons of opportunity to
them. Thank you so much for your leadership in introducing
the T-FELAS Act.
Sincerely,
Eric Schwarz,
President and CEO.
____
Save the Children,
Washington, DC, February 13, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: I am writing to
express Save the Children's support of the Teaching Fellow
for Expanded Learning and AfterSchool (T-FELAS) Act, which
will expand learning opportunities outside of the school day
and establish a new service teacher corps.
Save the Children provides literacy and obesity prevention
programs after school and during the summer to children
living in poor, often isolated, rural areas. We know the
difference these activities make in their lives. Students in
our programs are not only safe during the critical hours from
3 to 6 p.m.; they are also doing better in school. Evaluation
results from the past three school years found that our
literacy program is improving the reading levels of regular
participants. Fifty-four percent of the children
participating made gains in reading proficiency greater than
would be expected if they were just attending school.
We also know first-hand the difficulties of recruiting and
retaining trained, dynamic staff. The T-FELAS Act will assist
the caring individuals working with high-need children in
rural communities improve their qualifications by enabling
them to pursue an undergraduate or graduate level degree in
education, expanding their opportunities to in public
education and youth development programs.
We look forward to working with you and the staff of the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as this bill
progresses towards enactment. Please do not hesitate to
contact us if we can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Mark K. Shriver,
Vice President and Managing Director.
____
February 15, 2007.
Dear Brenda Wright: I am writing in support of the T-Felas
bill that Senators Kennedy and Burr are sponsoring. As a
provider of high quality after school enrichment I would love
to see more awareness of the opportunity for extended
learning time and the strides that organizations such as ours
have made in the field. We have an incredible opportunity to
truly make a positive impact on the lives of these students
both academically and behaviorally.
Thank you for your support of this bill.
Jerri Fatticci,
North Carolina State Director,
Citizen Schools.
____
Wellesley Centers for Women,
Wellesley, MA, Feb. 16, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Burr: The National
Institute on Out-of-School Time is writing to express its
support of the Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and
After-School (T-FELAS) Act.
T-FELAS will help ease the difficulty of recruiting and
paying new educators and leaders for high need schools and
afterschool programs. NIOST is actively involved in
developing increased educational opportunities for people who
choose afterschool as their profession and is excited about
how T-FELAS will also increase the viability of afterschool
as a professional career. Talented front-line educators are
needed to serve in expanded learning and after-school
environments to help students meet the ever-increasing
challenges of the real world.
T-FELAS will encourage and enable qualified people
interested in teaching and afterschool to spend time learning
in the field while completing their own education. The
funding of dynamic Teaching Fellows to administer and improve
expanded-day programs and to also assist teachers during the
school day is a great plan. Research indicates that
relationships between school and afterschool staff can
contribute to positive academic and developmental outcomes
for youth. The Teaching Fellows have the potential of playing
an important role in supporting those relationships.
The National Institute on Out-of-School Time looks forward
to watching this bill as it progresses towards enactment.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Ellen Gannett,
Director, The National Institute on
Out-of-School Time.
____
Search Institute,
February 14, 2007.
Senator Edward Kennedy,
317 Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy: I am writing to express my strong
support for the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and
After-School Act. This bill, fondly known as T-FELAS, is an
exciting proposal that will recruit, train and place Fellows
in expanded learning and after-school environments.
I am particularly gratified to see that the bill ensures
that each Fellow will be provided with training on the power
of positive relationships and the value of developmental
assets. This is so important! Research has consistently shown
that increased developmental assets promote academic success,
divert youth from risky behavior and give young people the
strengths they need to make positive choices in life.
I assure you that providing the Fellows with training in
positive youth development and the 40 Developmental Assets
will have a dramatic and profound impact on their ability to
serve the youth under their care. When Fellows develop
sustained, strength-based relationships with children and
adolescents, these after-school and summer hours will produce
all the positive outcomes we hope to see from our students.
Again, thank you for your service and your efforts to
ensure that all youth have an opportunity to thrive!
Best regards,
Peter Benson, Ph.D.,
President.
____
Policy Studies Associates, Inc.,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2007.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Chairman, HELP Committee, Hart Senate Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing in support of your bill
to amend ESEA Title II to create the Expanded Learning and
After-School Fellows program.
I direct evaluations of large-scale after-school programs
in many locations, including Boston, New York City, statewide
in New Jersey, and rural America (as sponsored by Save the
Children). Our studies have consistently shown the value to
youth of staffing these programs with well-educated
individuals who have four-year college degrees. Such
individuals bring an understanding of the learning process
plus an enriched store of background knowledge. Because they
have completed a college education, they understand its value
and can communicate high standards and the value of hard work
to the youth with whom they work.
In one example, from a 2004 multi-year evaluation of
programs in New York City sponsored by The After-School
Corporation (TASC), I wrote: In sites where at least 25
percent of project staff had a four-year college degree,
participants had more positive changes in test scores than in
TASC sites with a lower proportion of staff members with such
degrees (effect size of 0.14 in math and 0.13 in reading).
Staff with college degrees may be better able to see and to
exploit the varied learning opportunities embedded within
themes and topics adopted by after-school projects.
You or your staff should call on me at any time if I can be
helpful with regard to this bill. I can be reached at (202)
939-5323 and at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Elizabeth R. Reisner,
Principal.
____
The Forum for Youth Investment,
February 19, 2007.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The Forum for Youth Investment is
writing to express its support of the Teaching Fellows for
Expanded Learning and After-School (T-FELAS) Act.
T-FELAS will establish a new service teacher corps and
expand learning and enrichment opportunities targeted towards
the hours after the school day ends. Both of these are much
needed improvements that will help ensure that children and
youth have the supports they need to succeed.
The Forum for Youth Investment is committed to ensuring all
young people are Ready by 21TM--ready for college,
work and life. We know the need for expanded learning and
positive youth development experiences in the hours after
school. We know the importance of developing the next
generation of youth workers, skilled in youth development
practices and viewing public service and youth work as a
career. Our research shows that those who chose to work come
from varied backgrounds but share a common belief--that they
can make a difference.
We applaud the inclusion of youth development language,
especially the training in youth development for the Fellows,
and acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive
through both two- and four-year institutions of higher
education that provide accredited coursework in youth
development. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation of T-
FELAS programs, implementing the interagency reach of the
Federal Youth Development Council as a place to disseminate
best practices will continue to move the field forward.
We look forward to supporting your office and the staff of
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as this
bill progresses towards enactment. Please do not hesitate to
contact Nicole Yohalem if we can be of any assistance--at
[email protected] or (202) 207-3341.
[[Page S2718]]
Thank you for your leadership on behalf of the youth in our
nation.
Sincerely,
Karen Pittman,
Executive Director,
Forum for Youth Investment.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 779. A bill to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a one year only
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act.
For the last six years, this Act has provided critical funding to our
rural schools and counties and has built collaboration on the ground
through the accomplishments of the Resource Advisory Committees.
Unfortunately Congress has not been able to reauthorize P.L. 106-393
and I do not feel the schools and counties should become victims while
we in Congress negotiate a path forward.
Thus, I am introducing this bill today and will work to include it in
any legislation that is being considered by the Senate.
The Act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing
the goals of Congress. This Act has restored programs for students in
rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural
schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural
school students with educational opportunities comparable to suburban
and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of
this Act.
Next, the Act has allowed rural county road districts and county road
departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has
been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have
been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish
passage have been upgraded and replaced.
In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs have been
formed. These RAC's cover our largest 150 forest counties. Nationally
these 15-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and
approved over 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public
and private lands. These projects have addressed a wide variety of
improvements drastically needed on our National Forests. Projects have
included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration,
road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and
trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication.
The accomplishments of this Act over the last few years are positive
and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to
benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute
to improving the health of our National Forests.
If we do not work to reauthorize this Act, all of the progress of the
last six years will be lost. Schools in timber dependant communities
will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts
will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or
canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and
trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our
children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so
that only the essential services of the county are met because that is
all they will be able to afford.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 783. A bill to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit
of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State
of Louisiana, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to re-
introduce--with some changes--a bill that I first introduced on April
6, 2004, in the 108th Congress and which I reintroduced in the 109th
Congress. This bill will transfer 3,083 acres of Federal land to the
Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park,
and authorize the Park to purchase up to 821 acres of neighboring
private lands from willing sellers. The lands in question contain
important freshwater wetlands, and would allow the park boundary to
conform to existing waterways and levee corridors.
As of today, the Senate has twice passed--once in the 108th Congress
and once in the 109th Congress--a form of this bill by unanimous
consent. I trust that few will find anything too objectionable about
these provisions in the 110th Congress either. After all, it simply
places lands that are already under Federal control under the
management authority of the National Park Service, which already
manages neighboring lands and helps protect their environmental,
cultural and historic integrity.
The first major tract in question is the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands,
which were acquired by the Justice Department in 1996 as a result of
the settlement of a lawsuit. Although the National Park Service has
constructive possession of the deeds, it lacks legal management
authority. The area has exemplary natural resource values and has been
designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a wetland of
significant value. Most importantly, because of the hydrologic
connection between the two areas, the environmental health of the Jean
Lafitte Park's Barataria Preserve is dependent on the continued health
of the Bayou aux Carpes.
The second major tract is the Bayou Segnette wetlands, which are
presently managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The inclusion of this
area in the Barataria Unit will allow for better control over water
entering the park from outside sources.
My bill also authorizes the acquisition, from willing sellers, of
approximately 821 acres of privately owned lands which are adjacent to
the park. Approximately half of this area is designated as
jurisdictional wetlands, with limited access and no potential for
development. All of this land has been included within the boundary at
the request of the owners. This provision was also included in the
earlier versions of this bill that were passed in the 108th and 109th
Congresses.
Lastly, allow me to explain what is new about this bill: this bill
also authorizes the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve to
acquire the Fleming-Berthoud Plantation--previously known as the Mavis
Grove Plantation. This plantation is one of the southernmost early
sugar plantations and surrounds a prehistoric Indian mound and historic
cemetery on the edge of the bayou, which is one of the most scenic and
most photographed cemeteries around New Orleans. Recently, it was
highlighted in the recent Cabildo exhibition and book on historic
cemeteries of New Orleans.
The original plantation contained more than 10,000 acres and was a
large sugar plantation. After floods destroyed area sugar plantations
in the 19th century, this was turned into one of the larger cypress
tree lumbering plantations. The Berthoud family bought it in the late
19th century and the Fleming family bought it in the early 20th
century.
The 1,000-year-old prehistoric Indian mound and historic above-ground
tombstone cemetery are relatively well preserved and have been twice
declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by state
officials; though no action has yet been taken on that designation.
Currently, many of the historic plantation structures are unrestored,
vacant and in poor condition. But the main plantation house remains in
good condition. I have been told that it was photographed for the cover
of National Geographic Magazine in the 1930s and has been the setting
for close to 10 Hollywood movies.
The other buildings include a 75-foot, 175-year-old brick sugar
refining chimney, in relatively good condition; an overseer's Creole
style cottage from the mid 1800s cited by historians as a fine early
example of island architecture; a 19th Century annex building connected
to the original plantation house, now in poor condition; a 1920s house
built on the original sugar refinery foundations; an early blacksmith
shop and several other barns and buildings, most in poor condition.
My bill will authorize the National Park Service to acquire this land
from the family, who I am told support the transaction and the
restoration of the land and buildings. I am also told that historic
preservation organizations may step forward to provide private funding
in support of the National Park Service's acquisition of the land.
[[Page S2719]]
In all, I think that this bill marks an important day for Louisiana.
We are authorizing the management and preservation of several
ecological, cultural and historic gems. I hope that my colleagues will
fully support this endeavor as they have in the past.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 783
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 ``Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND PRESERVE
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 901 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230) is amended in the
second sentence by striking ``of approximately twenty
thousand acres generally depicted on the map entitled
`Barataria Marsh Unit-Jean Lafitte National Historical Park
and Preserve' numbered 90,000B and dated April 1978,'' and
inserting ``generally depicted on the map entitled `Boundary
Map, Barataria Preserve Unit, Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve', numbered _____, and dated
________,''.
(b) Acquisition of Land.--Section 902 of the National Parks
and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``(a) Within the'' and all that follows
through the first sentence and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Barataria preserve unit.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may acquire any land,
water, and interests in land and water within the area, as
depicted on the map described in section 901, by donation,
purchase with donated or appropriated funds, transfer from
any other Federal agency, or exchange.
``(B) Limitations.--
``(i) In general.--Any private land located in the area, as
depicted on the map described in section 901, may be acquired
by the Secretary only with the consent of the owner of the
land.
``(ii) Boundary adjustment.--On the date on which the
Secretary, under subparagraph (A), completes the acquisition
of a parcel of private land located in the area, as depicted
on the map described in section 901, the boundary of the
historical park and preserve shall be adjusted to reflect the
acquisition.
``(iii) Jurisdiction of national park service.--Any Federal
land acquired in the areas shall be transferred without
consideration to the administrative jurisdiction of the
National Park Service.
``(iv) Easements.--To ensure adequate hurricane protection
of the communities located in the area, any land in the area
identified on the map that is acquired or transferred shall
be subject to any easements that have been agreed to by the
Secretary and the Secretary of the Army.'';
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary may
also'' and inserting the following:
``(2) French quarter.--The Secretary may'';
(C) in the third sentence, by striking ``Lands, waters, and
interests therein'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Acquisition of state land.--Land, water, and
interests in land and water''; and
(D) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In acquiring''
and inserting the following:
``(4) Acquisition of oil and gas rights.--In acquiring'';
(2) by striking subsections (b) through (f) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Resource Protection.--With respect to the land,
water, and interests in land and water of the Barataria
Preserve Unit, the Secretary shall preserve and protect--
``(1) fresh water drainage patterns;
``(2) vegetative cover;
``(3) the integrity of ecological and biological systems;
and
``(4) water and air quality.''; and
(3) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (c).
(c) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.--Section 905 of the
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230d) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``, except that
within the core area and on those lands acquired by the
Secretary pursuant to section 902(c) of this title, he'' and
inserting ``on land, and interests in land and water managed
by the Secretary, except that the Secretary''.
(d) Administration.--Section 906 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230e) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Pending such
establishment and thereafter the'' and inserting ``The''.
SEC. 3. REFERENCES IN LAW.
(a) In General.--Any reference in a law (including
regulations), map, document, paper, or other record of the
United States--
(1) to the Barataria Marsh Unit shall be considered to be a
reference to the Barataria Preserve Unit; or
(2) to the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park shall be
considered to be a reference to the Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Title IX of the National Parks
and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Barataria Marsh Unit'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Barataria Preserve Unit''; and
(2) by striking ``Jean Lafitte National Historical Park''
each place it appears and inserting ``Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve''.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 784. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to
require commercial nuclear power plant operators to transfer spent
nuclear fuel from the nuclear fuel pools of the operators into spent
nuclear fuel dry casks at independent spent fuel storage installations
of the operators that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, to convey to the Secretary of Energy title to all such
transferred spent nuclear fuel, to provide for the transfer to the
Secretary of the independent spent fuel storage installation operating
responsibility of each plant together with the license granted by the
Commission for the installation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. 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. 784
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 ``Federal Accountability for
Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DRY CASK STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 (42 U.S.C. 10121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Subtitle I--Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
``SEC. 185. DRY CASK STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Contractor.--The term `contractor' means a person
that holds a contract under section 302(a) and is licensed by
the Commission to possess spent nuclear power reactor fuel.
``(2) Spent nuclear fuel dry cask.--The term `spent nuclear
fuel dry cask' means the container (and all the components
and systems associated with the container)--
``(A) in which spent nuclear fuel is stored and naturally
cooled at an independent spent fuel storage installation that
is licensed by the Commission and located at the power
reactor site; and
``(B) with a design that is approved by the Commission by
license or rule.
``(3) Spent nuclear fuel pool.--The term `spent nuclear
fuel pool' means a water-filled container on a nuclear power
reactor site in which spent nuclear fuel rods are stored.
``(b) Transfer of Spent Nuclear Fuel.--
``(1) In general.--A contractor shall transfer spent
nuclear fuel from spent nuclear fuel pools to spent nuclear
fuel dry casks at an independent spent fuel storage
installation that is licensed by the Commission and located
at the power reactor site in accordance with this section.
``(2) Spent nuclear fuel stored as of date of enactment.--
Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this
section, a contractor shall complete the transfer of all
spent nuclear fuel that is stored in spent nuclear fuel pools
as of the date of enactment of this section.
``(3) Spent nuclear fuel stored after date of enactment.--
Not later than 6 years after the date on which spent nuclear
fuel is discharged from a reactor, a contractor shall
complete the transfer of any spent nuclear fuel that is
stored in a spent nuclear fuel pool after the date of
enactment of this section.
``(4) Inadequate funds or availability.--If funds are not
available to complete a transfer under paragraph (2) or (3),
or if spent nuclear fuel dry casks suitable for the
particular fuel are not available on reasonable terms and
conditions, the contractor may apply to the Commission to
extend the deadline for the transfer to be completed.
``(5) Commission licensing.--
``(A) In general.--The transfer under paragraph (2) or (3)
shall be to spent nuclear fuel dry casks generally licensed
by the Commission.
``(B) Generally licensed spent nuclear fuel dry casks
unavailable.--If generally licensed spent nuclear fuel dry
casks described in subparagraph (A) are not available, the
deadlines established in paragraphs (2) and (3) may be met by
the good faith filing of an application to the Commission for
a specific independent spent fuel storage installation
license.
``(C) Expedited review.--The Commission shall expedite the
review and decision of the Commission on an application
received
[[Page S2720]]
under subparagraph (B) in a manner that is consistent with
public health and safety, common defense and security, and
the right of an interested person to a hearing under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(c) Funding.--The Secretary shall make grants to
compensate a contractor for expenses incurred in carrying out
subsection (b), including costs associated with--
``(1) licensing and construction of an independent spent
fuel storage installation located at the power reactor site;
``(2) fabrication and delivery of spent nuclear fuel dry
casks;
``(3) transfers of spent nuclear fuel;
``(4) documentation relating to the transfers;
``(5) security; and
``(6) hardening and other safety or security improvements.
``(d) Conveyance of Title.--
``(1) Certification and conveyance of title.--
``(A) Certification.--The Commission shall certify to the
Secretary when safe and secure transfer of spent nuclear fuel
has been carried out under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection
(b).
``(B) Acceptance of title.--On receipt of the
certification, the Secretary shall accept the conveyance of
title to the spent nuclear fuel dry cask (including the
contents of the spent nuclear fuel dry cask) from the
contractor.
``(2) Responsibility.--
``(A) In general.--A conveyance of title under paragraph
(1)(B) shall confer on the Secretary full responsibility
(including safety, security, and financial responsibility)
for the subsequent possession, stewardship, maintenance,
monitoring, and ultimate disposition of all spent nuclear
fuel transferred to the Secretary.
``(B) Licenses.--On conveyance of title--
``(i) the general or specific Commission license held by
the contractor for the spent nuclear fuel dry cask shall be
terminated; and
``(ii) a general license for the spent nuclear fuel dry
cask under sections 53 and 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2111) shall be issued to the Secretary.
``(C) Regulations.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of enactment of this section, the Commission shall promulgate
regulations that establish the terms and conditions for
licenses described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(e) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish the
capability to carry out subsection (d)(2) in a manner that
protects the public health and safety and common defense and
security, and complies with all applicable laws.
``(2) Contracts with licensees.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary may contract with a holder of the operating license
issued by the Commission for 1 or more of the power reactors
located on or adjacent to the spent nuclear fuel dry cask for
the performance of all or part of the tasks required to carry
out subsection (d)(2).
``(B) Effect of contract.--A contract described in
subparagraph (A) shall not relieve the Secretary of the
ultimate responsibility of the Secretary under subsection
(d)(2) and as a licensee of the Commission.''.
(b) Use of Waste Fund.--Section 302(d) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the costs incurred in carrying out subsections (c)
and (e) of section 185.''.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 785. A bill to amend title 4 of the United States Code to limit
the extent to which States may tax the compensation earned by
nonresident telecommuters; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague
Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of
2007.
The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal
doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut
and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work
from home.
Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in
America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as
cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only
made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater
flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity.
As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or
other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required
at their primary place of work.
This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses,
families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise
worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work
and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in
so doing, lowers pollution.
Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to
maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who
choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the
most aggressive.
Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York
requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to
pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the
State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to
the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of
``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has
determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category.
While there are several States that have ``convenience of the
employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New
York.
Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New
York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from
home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on
those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is
physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects
the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites
outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their income earned
from home.
According to Connecticut's attorney general, thousands of Connecticut
residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However,
it isn't only Connecticut residents who are at risk.
Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that
telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. In 1994 and 1995, Mr.
Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the
remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to
apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100
percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of
employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals
upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. The Supreme Court declined
to hear his appeal.
A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who
worked for the New York office of Cowen & Co. as an investment
counselor from 1976 through 1996 and paid New York state income taxes
during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request,
opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several
times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his
days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this
time, he paid New York state income taxes for the days he was in New
York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York,
however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due
to its ``convenience of the employer'' rule.
These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this
``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals
across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most,
however, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.
This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also
discourages people from telecommuting when we should be doing the
opposite.
Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve
fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax
Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a
State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to
be in the taxing state when the nonresident is actually working in
another state. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that
citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.
Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation does--
is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in
a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the
worker should pay taxes in that State.
Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by
[[Page S2721]]
having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters.
However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to
allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is
working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of
services paid for and maintained by Connecticut, including roads,
water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only
fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that
he or she uses.
This is not just an issue that deals with a small group of citizens
from one small state.
Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country.
It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to
seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence the way we
live and work.
I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 785
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 ``Telecommuter Tax Fairness
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON STATE TAXATION OF COMPENSATION EARNED
BY NONRESIDENT TELECOMMUTERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 127. Limitation on State taxation of compensation
earned by nonresident telecommuters
``(a) In General.--In applying its income tax laws to the
compensation of a nonresident individual, a State may deem
such nonresident individual to be present in or working in
such State for any period of time only if such nonresident
individual is physically present in such State for such
period and such State may not impose nonresident income taxes
on such compensation with respect to any period of time when
such nonresident individual is physically present in another
State.
``(b) Determination of Physical Presence.--For purposes of
determining physical presence, no State may deem a
nonresident individual to be present in or working in such
State on the grounds that--
``(1) such nonresident individual is present at or working
at home for convenience, or
``(2) such nonresident individual's work at home or office
at home fails any convenience of the employer test or any
similar test.
``(c) Determination of Periods of Time With Respect to
Which Compensation Is Paid.--For purposes of determining the
periods of time with respect to which compensation is paid,
no State may deem a period of time during which a nonresident
individual is physically present in another State and
performing certain tasks in such other State to be--
``(1) time that is not normal work time unless such
individual's employer deems such period to be time that is
not normal work time,
``(2) nonworking time unless such individual's employer
deems such period to be nonworking time, or
``(3) time with respect to which no compensation is paid
unless such individual's employer deems such period to be
time with respect to which no compensation is paid.
``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States (or any subdivision thereof), the District of
Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United
States.
``(2) Income tax.--The term `income tax' has the meaning
given such term by section 110(c).
``(3) Income tax laws.--The term `income tax laws' includes
any statutes, regulations, administrative practices,
administrative interpretations, and judicial decisions.
``(4) Nonresident individual.--The term `nonresident
individual' means an individual who is not a resident of the
State applying its income tax laws to such individual.
``(5) Employee.--The term `employee' means an employee as
defined by the State in which the nonresident individual is
physically present and performing personal services for
compensation.
``(6) Employer.--The term `employer' means the person
having control of the payment of an individual's
compensation.
``(7) Compensation.--The term `compensation' means the
salary, wages, or other remuneration earned by an individual
for personal services performed as an employee or as an
independent contractor.
``(e) No Inference.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as bearing on--
``(1) any tax laws other than income tax laws,
``(2) the taxation of corporations, partnerships, trusts,
estates, limited liability companies, or other entities,
organizations, or persons other than nonresident individuals
in their capacities as employees or independent contractors,
``(3) the taxation of individuals in their capacities as
shareholders, partners, trust and estate beneficiaries,
members or managers of limited liability companies, or in any
similar capacities, and
``(4) the income taxation of dividends, interest,
annuities, rents, royalties, or other forms of unearned
income.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such
chapter 4 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``127. Limitation on State taxation of compensation earned by
nonresident telecommuters.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 786. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to
foster efficient markets and increase competition and transparency
among packers that purchased livestock from producers; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I have in the past
sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or
what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act.'' Today
we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to
reintroduce this important legislation.
My sponsorship of the packer ban this Congress is based on the belief
that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a
fair price for their livestock. Over the years we have seen widespread
consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the
trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no
question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market
their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.
The past CEO of a major packer in 1994 explained that the reason
packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use
their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers
buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely
being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the
live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent
producer.
This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent
producers have a share in the marketplace while assisting the Mandatory
Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a
packer's daily kill comes from the spot market.
By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory
price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and
accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being
purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency
of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be
guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the
daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement.
The packers required to comply would be the same packers required to
report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that
kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000
lambs annually, over a 5 year average.
Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer
contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority
of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory
Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not
accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on
the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to
manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give
confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy
and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair
prices for contracts based on that data.
It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs
being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price
reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of
livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that
information is wrong, the contract producers suffer.
This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers
market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by
making it more
[[Page S2722]]
difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be manipulated
because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The Transparency
Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock producers receive a
fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking forward to working on this
legislation in a bipartisan fashion.
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. 786
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.
Chapter 5 of subtitle B of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 260. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered packer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered packer' means a packer
that is required under this subtitle to report to the
Secretary each reporting day information on the price and
quantity of livestock purchased by the packer.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered packer' does not
include a packer that owns only 1 livestock processing plant.
``(2) Nonaffiliated producer.--The term `nonaffiliated
producer' means a producer of livestock--
``(A) that sells livestock to a packer;
``(B) that has less than 1 percent equity interest in the
packer, which packer has less than 1 percent equity interest
in the producer;
``(C) that has no officers, directors, employees, or owners
that are officers, directors, employees, or owners of the
packer;
``(D) that has no fiduciary responsibility to the packer;
and
``(E) in which the packer has no equity interest.
``(3) Spot market sale.--
``(A) In general.--The term `spot market sale' means a
purchase and sale of livestock by a packer from a producer--
``(i) under an agreement that specifies a firm base price
that may be equated with a fixed dollar amount on the date
the agreement is entered into;
``(ii) under which the livestock are slaughtered not more
than 7 days after the date on which the agreement is entered
into; and
``(iii) under circumstances in which a reasonable
competitive bidding opportunity exists on the date on which
the agreement is entered into.
``(B) Reasonable competitive bidding opportunity.--For the
purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), circumstances in which a
reasonable competitive bidding opportunity shall be
considered to exist if--
``(i) no written or oral agreement precludes the producer
from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers; and
``(ii) no circumstance, custom, or practice exists that--
``(I) establishes the existence of an implied contract (as
determined in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code);
and
``(II) precludes the producer from soliciting or receiving
bids from other packers.
``(b) General Rule.--Of the quantity of livestock that is
slaughtered by a covered packer during each reporting day in
each plant, the covered packer shall slaughter not less than
the applicable percentage specified in subsection (c) of the
quantity through spot market sales from nonaffiliated
producers.
``(c) Applicable Percentages.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
applicable percentage shall be 25 percent.
``(2) Exceptions.--In the case of a covered packer that
reported to the Secretary in the 2006 annual report that more
than 75 percent of the livestock of the covered packer were
captive supply livestock, the applicable percentage shall be
the greater of--
``(A) the difference between the percentage of captive
supply so reported and 100 percent; and
``(B)(i) during each of calendar years 2008 and 2009, 10
percent;
``(ii) during each of calendar years 20010 and 2011, 15
percent; and
``(iii) during calendar year 2012 and each calendar year
thereafter, 25 percent.
``(d) Nonpreemption.--Notwithstanding section 259, this
section does not preempt any requirement of a State or
political subdivision of a State that requires a covered
packer to purchase on the spot market a greater percentage of
the livestock purchased by the covered packer than is
required under this section.
``(e) Relationship to Other Provisions.--Nothing in this
section affects the interpretation of any other provision of
this Act, including section 202.''.
____________________