[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 78 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6018-S6023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 1368. A bill to amend the Denali Commission Act of 1998 to modify
the authority of the Commission; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to introduce S.
1368, a bill to reauthorize a Federal-State partnership known as the
Denali Commission. This Commission plays a crucial role in the
development of basic infrastructure for communities in rural Alaska.
The Denali Commission was originally established by Congress in 1998.
The unique structure of the Commission ensures the most efficient
allocation of Federal funds, as it caps administrative expenses at 5
percent and capitalizes on the use of strategic partnerships. Over the
course of the past decade, the Commission has partnered with Federal
and State agencies, tribal organizations, and local communities to
address the unique challenges associated with living in Alaska. In just
a short period of time, the Commission has improved the living
conditions of rural Alaska by providing job training, teacher housing
and funds to improve options for handling solid waste. The bulk fuel
projects undertaken by the Commission have reduced the costs of rural
energy. The health clinics have increased the availability of health
services to rural villages that are isolated from metropolitan areas.
There are 240 Alaska Native Villages, and over 100 communities have
been served by the Denali Commission.
Although the Denali Commission has made tremendous strides to ensure
rural Alaska has basic living conditions, there still is work to be
done. Many of the rural communities have no roads and their
transportation infrastructure is deteriorating. Numerous villages can
only be accessed by water, and the docks in the communities are in
desperate need of repair. The projects conducted by the Denali
Commission not only keep communities connected to mainstream Alaska,
projects also foster economic growth. The unemployment rates in many
villages remain above 50 percent. The high cost of basic needs, such as
milk and oil, coupled with public infrastructure that is comparable to
developing nations create difficult circumstance in rural Alaska. The
Denali Commission is our best hope for properly addressing these issues
and meeting the needs of Alaskans.
The continuation of the Denali Commission's presence in rural Alaska
is of critical importance to the future of rural Alaska. The bill I
introduce today would reauthorize the Denali Commission for 5 years,
through fiscal year 2014.
Other provisions of this bill would also amend the Denali Commission
Act of 1998 to make the Commission stronger and more efficient.
Senator Murkowski is an original cosponsor of this legislation, and
it is our hope the Senate will act quickly to reauthorize the Denali
Commission.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1369. A bill to grant immunity from civil liability to any person
who voluntarily notifies appropriate security personnel of suspicious
activity believed to threaten transportation safety or security or
takes reasonable action to mitigate such activity; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
would provide immunity to individuals who report suspicious activities
that may reflect terrorist threats to our transportation system. I am
very honored that Senators Kyl and Lieberman have joined me in
introducing this important bill.
The recent arrest in New Jersey of six men charged with conspiring to
murder American soldiers at Fort Dix underscores the need for this
bill. Law enforcement officials have noted that their investigation was
triggered by the report of an alert store clerk who said a customer had
brought in a video that showed men firing weapons and shouting in
Arabic. This reminded the store clerk of the 9/11 terrorists.
But for the report of this store clerk, it is unlikely this potential
plot against Fort Dix--a plot that if executed would have caused the
loss of lives--would have been uncovered. That store clerk's action may
have saved literally hundreds of lives and represents a core truth of
the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than
just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also
depends on the alertness and civil responsibility of ordinary American
citizens, including the peaceful and tolerant people who form the vast
majority of America's Muslim communities.
We must encourage average citizens to be watchful and report behavior
that appears to be suspicious or threatening. That imperative is
especially strong in the area of mass transportation, where there is
the potential for mass casualties, where vehicles and aircraft can be
used as weapons, and where there is often only a brief period of time
for assessing and reacting to alarming behavior. That is why the slogan
``See something, say something,'' is used in the New York subway.
Unfortunately, we have seen that plaintiffs can misuse our legal
system to chill the willingness of average citizens to come forward and
report possible dangers. As was widely reported last fall, six Islamic
clerics were removed from a USAirways flight after other passengers
expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of their
assigned seats and had requested, but apparently were not using,
seatbelt extenders that could possibly double as weapons.
As a result of that incident, what happened? Well, the USAirways
officials decided to remove these individuals from the plane so they
could further investigate. What happened to the individuals who
courageously came forward and reported this suspicious behavior?
Unbelievably, they were sued for voicing their fears that the clerics
could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking. These honestly
concerned passengers found themselves as defendants in lawsuits that
were filed in March.
The existence of this lawsuit clearly illustrates how unfair it is to
allow private citizens to possibly be intimidated into silence by the
threat of litigation. Would that alert clerk in the store have come
forward if he thought there was a chance he was going to be sued? Would
the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated there would be a
lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose
citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.
Our bill would provide civil immunity in American courts for citizens
[[Page S6019]]
acting in good faith who report threats to our transportation systems.
The bill would encourage people to pass on information to appropriate
transportation system officials and employees, to law enforcement or
transportation security officials, or to the Departments of Homeland
Security, Justice, or Transportation, without fear of being sued just
for doing their civic duty.
Only disclosures made to those responsible officials and employees
would be protected by the legislation's grant of immunity. Once a
report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing
its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required.
If these officials take reasonable action to mitigate the reported
threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should
not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not
discourage reasonable responses to them.
Let me make very clear this bill does not offer any protection
whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to
be false. No one will be able to use this bill, should it become law,
as I hope it will, as a cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased
falsehoods.
Our laws and legal system must not be hijacked to intimidate people
into silence or to prevent our officials from responding to terrorist
threats. Protecting citizens who make good-faith reports--and that is
an important qualification in this bill--protecting citizens who make
good-faith reports of potentially lethal activities is essential to
maintaining our homeland security.
Our bill offers protection in a measured way, that discourages abuses
from either side. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Senator Lieberman and I have been holding a series of hearings,
starting last year, in the Homeland Security Committee, to look at the
threat of home-grown terrorists, domestic radicalization. We have
learned a lot in the past 6 months. What we have learned has only
strengthened my determination to push ahead with this bill.
The fact is, each of us has an important responsibility. The fight
against domestic terrorism--or, indeed, any kind of terrorism--requires
the active involvement of the citizenry of this country. It is not a
fight that can be left simply to law enforcement. We simply could never
have a sufficient number of law enforcement or intelligence officials
to take care of every threat. Indeed, the foiled threat at Fort Dix
shows us how important citizen involvement is.
I think this is a reasonable bill. It requires this immunity would be
granted only for reports made in good faith. This would help encourage
passengers on airlines and on trains to report suspicious activities. I
think that is a necessary protection in this day and age.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1370. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure
more investment and innovation in clean energy technologies; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that I believe is an important component of comprehensive energy
policy. In order to transition away from an overreliance on fossil
fuels, we must promote investments in clean energy generation using
renewable resources and reduce the growth in demand for energy by
stressing efficiency.
I think every Member of the Senate recognizes that while there is no
single technological silver bullet for our energy problems, there are
many emerging technologies that if adopted and deployed could go a long
way in meeting our vexing energy security and climate challenges.
We also know that Government can play a key role setting technology
standards and clean energy goals, but shifting our Nation's and the
world's energy system to clean energy alternatives will take
substantial private sector investment. Here, too, the Government can
play a key role by enabling the market conditions that will take the
technology from the laboratory and turn it into fully operational
energy producing facilities.
A number of reports have suggested that private investment in energy
technologies is on the rise. While estimates vary widely, New Energy
Finance has reported that 1,246 private equity funds put more than $70
billion into clean energy technologies in 2006--a 43-percent increase
relative to 2005. Similarly, a survey conducted late last year by the
National Venture Capital Association found that more than 90 percent of
respondents expect to increase investment in the energy sector in 2007.
This is a unique time. There is growing consensus that our Nation's
energy demands need to be better and more smartly managed and, more
importantly, consensus that those growing energy demands should be met
using clean, renewable energy resources.
The Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007, which I introduce
along with my colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith and John Kerry,
responds to the clear message that was delivered to both the Senate
Energy and Senate Finance Committees by businesses that are on the
cutting edge in this area. What we heard from the renewable energy
community and the investment community is that what they need most is
some certainty in the Tax Code.
This type of Federal assistance will support the needed long-term
investments that ultimately will drive down the costs of electricity
from renewable sources. Once the market for these new technologies is
up and running, such facilities will be economically self-sustaining
and profitable.
Our legislation adheres to the following principles:
Certainty. We put the existing tax incentives in place long enough to
drive investment dollars so these new technologies can be
commercialized. The core of this bill is a 5-year extension and
modification of the production tax credit. This tax credit is designed
to help businesses and utilities diversify their sources of energy and
promote energy production using biomass, wind power, hydropower,
geothermal power, and other clean, renewable resources. In addition, we
extend for 8 years the investment tax credit that is so important in
encouraging the large upfront outlay of capital that is required for
solar and fuel cell power plants.
Technological neutrality. This bill levels the playing field by
providing an incentive to both thermal energy production and
electricity production that use renewable resources. It also modifies
the tax credits to increase the incentive effect for all renewable
technologies that can produce energy with zero carbon emissions.
Parity between investor-owned utilities and consumer-owned public
power utilities. The bill provides a powerful, complementary incentive
through the Clean Renewable Energy Bond Program so that public power
and consumer-owned utilities that cannot benefit from tax credits are
not financially disadvantaged when they invest in renewable facilities.
Public power utilities are required to meet State renewable portfolio
standards in the same way as investor-owned utilities, and Government
should provide comparable financial incentives so that ultimately the
cost of electricity can be reduced for all customers.
Importance of efficiency. This bill includes provisions that better
utilize the incentives in the Tax Code to promote energy efficiency in
manufacturing, construction of ``green buildings,'' and more efficient
homes. These tax incentives help defray the additional costs associated
with using new energy-efficient technologies, systems, and materials to
construct and retrofit factories, commercial buildings, and houses in
order to reduce energy demand. I know Senator Snowe has done a great
deal of work in this area, and I look forward to working with her on
these important provisions.
Another key component in this regard is an inducement for customers
and utilities to upgrade to ``smart meters.'' A ``smart meter'' is a
device with an electronic circuit board containing computer chips and a
digital communications device. It allows a customer to interact with a
utility in real time. This interaction allows the utility to better
forecast and manage energy load and the customer can manage his energy
use to lower the cost.
The electromechanical meter, the device that measures energy use with
the little wheels turning inside it that is hooked up to almost every
home and business in America, is almost the
[[Page S6020]]
same as when it was invented in the 1930s, when FDR was President.
Inefficient use of energy forces utilities to invest millions in
building plants that operate only when energy demand peaks. As a
result, the power these plants generate costs far more than power from
other sources. This means more expensive power when demand is high.
Our bill would allow a faster recovery period for the costs of
installing these new ``smart meters,'' which will make it easier for
consumers to reduce energy use during these peak periods and shift
their energy use to low-demand, low-cost times of the day.
We know that we don't have an unlimited pool of Federal resources,
and I believe strongly that the Finance Committee should redirect
subsidies that historically have propped up the oil and gas industry to
now support this new direction in energy policy.
Our tax policy here should be driven by our energy policy goals. We
cannot make a long-term difference with start-and-stop tax policy. But
we must be mindful that after a reasonable period all tax incentives
should be reexamined to see whether we have gotten the results we
anticipated and whether the marketplace is ready to function on its
own.
We should focus tax incentives where they will have the greatest
impact in helping meet those goals. While this bill seeks to address
renewable power and efficiency, I plan to continue working on
legislation to effectively align the other incentives in the Tax Code
that are designed to promote alternative fuels and vehicles.
We all witnessed how innovation in information technologies served as
a forceful driver of productivity and economic growth in the recent
past.
Energy technology innovations now have similar potential to fuel a
new wave of economic growth and job creation.
I would like to note that this bill has already received the support
of the following organizations: American Forest Resource Council;
American Public Power Association; Biomass Investment Group; Energy
Northwest; Large Public Power Council; Northwest Public Power
Association; Southern California Public Power Authority; Solar Energy
Industries Association; USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance; Chelan
County PUD, Snohomish County PUD, Tacoma Power, and Seattle City Light;
Washington Public Utility Districts Association; Simpson Investment
Company, Tacoma; National Hydropower Association; Seattle Steam; and
TechNet.
We have a tremendous opportunity in this Congress to set a new course
in energy, environmental, and economic policy for the 21st century, and
I hope we aggressively move forward and meet this challenge.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the
Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the material was
ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:
The Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007
A bill to provide reliable Federal tax incentives to help
ensure more private sector led investment an innovation in
clean energy technologies.
Section-by-Section Summary
Sec. 1 Short Title.
Sec. 2. Expansion and modification of renewable electricity
production credit (IRC Section 45).
Under current law, a qualified facility must be placed in
service by December 31, 2008, in order to claim a tax credit
for electricity that is produced. The bill extends the placed
in service date until December 31, 2013, in order to provide
an adequate incentive to have more facilities placed in
service. Investors willing to bear the risks of new energy
technologies should not be subject to the economic risks of
start-and-stop tax policy.
The tax credit would be expanded to allow a credit for
either the production of thermal energy--heat, in the form
hot water or steam, or cooling in the form of chilled water,
ice or other media--or the production of electricity. This
would provide an incentive to invest in facilities that use
renewable energy sources to create useful and valuable
thermal energy, without generating electricity. Such district
energy facilities can provide significant efficiency gains
for heating and cooling buildings, displacing peak
electricity demands on the local grid and enhancing fuel
flexibility.
All qualifying facilities would be eligible to receive the
full rate of credit, as adjusted for inflation. Current law
reduces the credit by half for open-loop biomass, small
irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, and
hydropower facilities.
New and existing facilities would be able to claim the
credit for a period of 10 years, beginning on the date the
facility is placed in service.
The goal of the credit is to encourage deployment of
facilities that can produce energy from renewable sources. In
order to enable new and emerging technologies to benefit from
the credit, the bill grants authority to the Treasury
Department to allow a facility placed in service before
January 1, 2014, to qualify for the Section 45 credit even
though it produces thermal energy or electricity using a
renewable resource that is not enumerated in Section 45
provided that the facility produces energy with zero carbon
emissions. The determination of whether a facility meets the
zero carbon emissions requirement would be made in
consultation with the Energy Department. New and emerging
technologies that achieve the underlying goal of the
incentive will not be disadvantaged by having to come through
the lengthy legislative process in order to qualify.
The bill attempts to clarify existing Treasury guidance in
order to facilitate electricity purchased by a co-located
host facility (e.g. lumber mill) even in the case that both
facilities are owned by the same taxpayer. Treasury/IRS
Notice 2006-88 includes the concept of ``simultaneous sale
and purchase'' that is being viewed as an impediment for some
open-loop biomass facilities to claim the section 45 credit.
This broad concept appears to require netting of electricity
sold to, and purchased from, unrelated parties in order for a
facility to qualify. Our proposal seeks to reverse the effect
of this netting rule to allow qualified biomass facilities to
obtain the PTC for gross electricity sold to the grid without
any requirement to ``net'' electricity sold to and purchased
from an unrelated party.
The bill modifies the definition of closed-loop biomass in
Section 45(c)(2) to indicate that power producers that use
part or the dedicated crop to produce some other type of
renewable energy, for example: ethanol, etc., in addition to
making electricity, are not disqualified from obtaining the
closed-loop tax biomass tax credit for the electricity. Under
current law, if any part of the dedicated energy material
is used for any purpose other than producing electricity,
the electricity produced is not eligible for the closed
loop credit. Advances in energy science have led
scientists and investors toward the creation of ``energy
plantations'' that grow a dedicated crop for electricity
production that also can provide a source of cellulosic
ethanol. The bill would remove a disincentive to bringing
such multiuse green facilities online.
Under current law, for only closed-loop biomass facilities
modified to co-fire with coal, to co-fire with other biomass,
or to co-fire with coal and other biomass, there is no
reduction in credit by reason of grants, tax-exempt bonds,
subsidized energy financing, and other credits while there is
a reduction in the credit of up to 50 percent for other
qualified facilities in cases where a facility benefited from
grants, used proceeds from tax-exempt bonds, or was
subsidized under a Federal, State or local program. Our
proposal would equalize the treatment of all types of
facilities by repealing this limitation in current law
Section 45B(3). This will encourage States and localities to
partner with private industry as part of a multi-faceted
energy and environmental strategy.
Clarifies the statute to reflect additional work that may
be needed to retrofit potential non-hydropower dams and make
a technical correction related to incremental hydropower.
Sec. 3. Extension and expansion of credit to holders of clean
renewable energy bonds (IRC Sec. 54).
Under current law, the full financial incentives provided
under the tax credits are not available to certain entities
such as consumer-owned utilities, yet these utilities also
need to increase their investments in renewable energy
sources to meet their growing demands. The Clean Renewable
Energy Bond, CREB, program, enacted as part of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, was crafted to provide a comparable
financial incentive for consumer-owned utilities to invest in
new renewable electricity generation facilities. CREBs
provide public power systems with interest free borrowing for
qualified projects. State and local governments, U.S.
territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, Indian
tribal governments, CoBank, the National Rural Utilities
Cooperative Finance Corporation, mutual or cooperative
electric companies described in Internal Revenue Code Section
501 (c)(12) or 1381 (a)(2)(c), and a not-for-profit electric
utility that has received a loan or loan guarantee under the
Rural Electrification Act are all eligible to issue CREBs.
Unfortunately, the 2-year authorization, the cumulative
volume limit, and the smallest-to-largest project allocation
of this limited authority have made it difficult for these
bonds to be an effective large-scale investment incentive.
Our proposal would extend the program to December 31, 2013
and convert the cumulative volume cap into an annual cap.
Thus, the limitation in bonds issued would be $5 billion in
each calendar year. It is intended that the higher volume cap
will encourage broader allocation of the bonds to large-scale
projects.
[[Page S6021]]
Sec. 4. Extension and modification of residential energy
efficient property credit (Section 25D)
The bill extends until 2017 a 30 percent investment tax
credit for the purchase of residential solar water heating
and fuel cell property. In addition, the solar credit would
be based on system power rather than cost and would provide
$1,500 for each half-kilowatt of capacity for solar PV
equipment and $1,000 for each kilowatt of capacity for fuel
cells. Credits would be permitted against the alternative
minimum tax to expand the incentive effect of the tax credit.
The bill allows the same credit for purchases of
``qualified energy storage air conditioner property,'' which
increases the value of intermittent energy sources, such as
wind and solar, by creating, storing, and supplying cooling
energy.
Sec. 5. Extension and modification of energy credit (Section
48).
The bill extends until 2017 a 30 percent business credit,
for the purchase of fuel cell power plants, solar energy
property, and fiber optic property used to illuminate the
inside of a structure. The bill changes the maximum credit to
$1,500 for each half-kilowatt of capacity for solar PV
equipment and eliminates the cap on fuel cell power plant
property. The bill allows credits to be taken against the
alternative minimum tax.
The bill also allows the credit for purchases of
``qualified energy storage air conditioner property,'' which
increases the value of intermittent energy sources, such as
wind and solar, by creating, storing, and supplying cooling
energy.
Sec. 6. Extension and modification of nonbusiness energy
property credit (Section 25C).
The bill extends would extend through 2012 the 10 percent
investment tax credit for expenditures with respect to
building envelopes using qualified energy efficient property,
including qualified advanced main air circulating fans,
natural gas, propane, oil furnaces or hot water boilers. The
bill also would expand the deduction by removing the lifetime
limit and modifies the law so that the incentives are based
on performance rather than cost.
Sec. 7. Extension of new energy efficient home credit
(Section 45L).
Our proposal would extend through the end of 2012 the tax
credit to eligible contractors for the construction of
qualified new energy-efficient homes.
Sec. 8. Extension and modification of energy efficient
commercial buildings deduction (Section 179D).
Our proposal would extend through 2013 the deduction for
investments in commercial buildings that reduce annual energy
and power consumption. The bill also increases the amount of
the deduction to $2.25 per square foot, and modifies the
measurement of energy savings under the law.
Sec. 9. Five-year applicable recovery period for depreciation
of qualified energy management devices (Section 168(e)).
The bill would treat qualified ``smart meters'' as
qualified technological property eligible for 5 year cost
recovery; This will ease the financial burdens that are
hampering the deployment of this energy efficient technology
and reflect the more appropriate tax treatment of this next
generation meter technology. Under current law, smart meters
are treated the same ways as electromagnetic meters with a 20
year cost recovery period. This has been a serious
disincentive for taxpayers to upgrade their meters and
realize the energy savings that will result.
______
By Mr. CASEY:
S. 1374. A bill to assist States in making voluntary high quality
full-day prekindergarten programs available and economically affordable
for the families of all children for at least 1 year preceding
kindergarten; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my Prepare All Kids
Act of 2007, a bill that represents one of my highest priorities, high
quality prekindergarten education for all children, and particularly
those from low income families for whom the cost of prekindergarten may
be prohibitive. Investing in high quality early childhood development
programs should be a national priority for our country. I look forward
to speaking at length on the floor early next week about what my bill
will accomplish for children and working families. 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. 1374
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 ``Prepare All Kids Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. HIGH QUALITY FULL-DAY PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS.
Chapter 8 of subtitle A of title VI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35; 95 Stat. 357)
is amended by inserting after subchapter C the following:
``Subchapter D--High Quality Full-Day Prekindergarten Programs
``SEC. 661. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Investments in children and early education should be
a national priority.
``(2) The cost of high quality preschool is prohibitive for
poor families and is a significant financial strain for many
working- and middle-class families.
``(3) State-funded preschool is the most rapidly expanding
segment of the United States educational system, but in many
States a lack of stable funding poses an enormous threat to
the provision or continuation of high quality preschool.
``(4) The provision of high quality prekindergarten is a
cost-effective investment for children and for the Nation.
Research shows that for every $1 invested in high quality
early childhood programs, taxpayers save more than $17 in
crime, welfare, education, and other costs.
``(5) Fewer than half the Nation's poor preschool-age
children attend preschool. The result is a significant
preparation gap between poor and middle-class children and
between minority and white children.
``(6) High quality early education increases academic
success for schoolchildren who received that education by--
``(A) increasing high school graduation rates;
``(B) improving children's performance on standardized
tests;
``(C) reducing grade repetition; and
``(D) reducing the number of children placed in special
education.
``(7) High quality early education promotes responsible
behavior by teens and adults who received that education by--
``(A) reducing crime, delinquency, and unhealthy behaviors
such as smoking and drug use;
``(B) lowering rates of teen pregnancy;
``(C) leading to greater employment and higher wages for
adults; and
``(D) contributing to more stable families.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to assist States
in--
``(1) making voluntary high quality full-day
prekindergarten programs available and economically
affordable for the families of all children for at least 1
year preceding kindergarten; and
``(2) making the prekindergarten programs available to a
target population of children from families with incomes at
or below 200 percent of the poverty line, for whom the
prekindergarten programs will be free of charge.
``SEC. 662. DEFINITIONS.
``(a) In this Act:
``(1) Full-day.--The term `full-day', used with respect to
a program, means a program with a minimum of a 6-hour
schedule per day.
``(2) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' has the
meaning given the term in section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) and includes any
revision required by that section.
``(3) Prekindergarten.--The term `prekindergarten' means a
program that--
``(A) serves children who are ages 3 through 5;
``(B) supports children's cognitive, social, emotional, and
physical development and approaches to learning; and
``(C) helps prepare children for a successful transition to
kindergarten.
``(4) Prekindergarten teacher.--The term `prekindergarten
teacher' means an individual who
``(A) has a bachelor of arts degree with a specialization
in early childhood education or early childhood development;
or
``(B) during the 6-year period following the first date on
which the individual is employed as such a teacher under this
Act, is working toward that degree.
``(5) Qualified prekindergarten provider.--The term
`qualified prekindergarten provider' includes a provider of a
prekindergarten program, a Head Start agency, a provider of a
child care program, a school, and a for-profit or nonprofit
organization that--
``(A) is in existence on the date of the qualification
determination; and
``(B) has met applicable requirements under State or local
law that are designed to protect the health and safety of
children and that are applicable to child care providers.
``(6) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
``SEC. 663. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
``(a) Prekindergarten Incentive Fund.--The Secretary, in
collaboration and consultation with the Secretary of
Education, shall create a Prekindergarten Incentive Fund, to
be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
``(b) Grants.--In administering the Fund, the Secretary
shall award grants to eligible States, to pay for the Federal
share of the cost of awarding subgrants to qualified
prekindergarten providers to establish, expand, or enhance
voluntary high quality full-day prekindergarten programs.
``SEC. 664. STATE APPLICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Designated State Agency.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this Act, a State shall designate a State agency
to administer the State program of assistance for
prekindergarten programs funded through the grant, including
receiving and administering funds and monitoring the
programs.
[[Page S6022]]
``(b) State Application.--In order for a State to be
eligible to receive a grant under this Act, the designated
State agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require, including--
``(1) an assurance that, for prekindergarten programs
funded through the grant, the State will ensure that the
qualified prekindergarten providers target children from
families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty
line, and provide prekindergarten programs to children from
those families free of charge;
``(2) an assurance that the State will award subgrants for
prekindergarten programs that are sufficient to provide a
high quality prekindergarten experience;
``(3) an assurance that not less than 25 percent of the
qualified prekindergarten providers receiving such subgrants
will be providers of community-based programs;
``(4) a description of the number of children in the State
who are eligible for the prekindergarten programs and the
needs that will be served through the prekindergarten
programs;
``(5) a description of how the State will ensure that the
subgrants are awarded to a wide range of types of qualified
prekindergarten providers;
``(6) a description of how the designated State agency will
collaborate and coordinate activities with State-funded
providers of prekindergarten programs, providers of federally
funded programs such as Head Start agencies, local
educational agencies, and child care providers;
``(7) a description of how the State will ensure, through a
monitoring process, that qualified prekindergarten providers
receiving the subgrants continue to place priority on the
target population of children described in paragraph (1),
provide programs that meet the standards of high quality
early education, and use funds appropriately;
``(8) a description of how the State will meet the needs of
working parents; and
``(9) a description of how the State will assist in
providing professional development assistance to
prekindergarten teachers and teacher aides.
``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost
described in section 663(b) shall be 50 percent. The State
shall provide the non-Federal share of the cost in cash.
``(d) Supplementary Federal Funding.--Funds made available
under this Act may be used only to supplement and not
supplant other Federal, State, local, or private funds that
would, in the absence of the funds made available under this
Act, be made available for early childhood programs.
``(e) Maintenance of Effort.--A State that receives a grant
under this Act for a fiscal year shall maintain the
expenditures of the State for early childhood programs at a
level not less than the level of such expenditures of the
State for the preceding fiscal year.
``SEC. 665. STATE SET ASIDES AND EXPENDITURES.
``(a) Infant and Toddler Set Aside.--Notwithstanding
sections 662 and 663, a State shall set aside not less than
10 percent of the funds made available through a grant
awarded under this Act for the purpose of funding high
quality early childhood development programs for children who
are ages 0 through 3. Funds made available under this
subsection may also be used for professional development for
teachers and teacher aides in classrooms for children who are
ages 0 through 3.
``(b) Extended Day and Extended Year Set Aside.--
Notwithstanding section 663, a State shall set aside not less
than 10 percent of the funds made available through a grant
awarded under this Act for the purpose of extending the hours
of early childhood programs to create extended day and
extended year programs.
``(c) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of
the funds made available through such a grant may be used for
administrative expenses, including monitoring.
``SEC. 666. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.
``To be eligible to receive a subgrant under this Act, a
qualified prekindergarten provider shall submit an
application to the designated State agency at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the agency
may reasonably require, including--
``(1) a description of how the qualified prekindergarten
provider will meet the diverse needs of children in the
community to be served, including children with disabilities,
whose native language is not English, or with other special
needs, children in the State foster care system, and homeless
children;
``(2) a description of how the qualified prekindergarten
provider will serve eligible children who are not served
through similar services or programs;
``(3) a description of a plan for involving families in the
prekindergarten program;
``(4) a description of how children in the prekindergarten
program, and their parents and families, will receive
assistance through supportive services provided within the
community;
``(5) a description of how the qualified prekindergarten
provider collaborates with providers of other programs
serving children and families, including Head Start agencies,
providers of child care programs, and local educational
agencies, to meet the needs of children, families, and
working families, as appropriate; and
``(6) a description of how the qualified prekindergarten
provider will collaborate with local educational agencies to
ensure a smooth transition for participating students from
the prekindergarten program to kindergarten and early
elementary education.
``SEC. 667. LOCAL PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Mandatory Uses of Funds.--A qualified prekindergarten
provider that receives a subgrant under this Act shall use
funds received through the grant to establish, expand, or
enhance prekindergarten programs for children who are ages 3
through 5, including--
``(1) providing a prekindergarten program that supports
children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical
development and approaches to learning, and helps prepare
children for a successful transition to kindergarten;
``(2) purchasing educational equipment, including
educational materials, necessary to provide a high quality
prekindergarten program; and
``(3) extending part-day prekindergarten programs to full-
day prekindergarten programs.
``(b) Permissible Use of Funds.--A qualified
prekindergarten provider that receives a subgrant under this
Act may use funds received through the grant to--
``(1) pay for transporting students to and from a
prekindergarten program; and
``(2) provide professional development assistance to
prekindergarten teachers and teacher aides.
``(c) Program Requirements.--A qualified prekindergarten
provider that receives a subgrant under this Act shall carry
out a high quality prekindergarten program by--
``(1) maintaining a maximum class size of 20 children, with
at least 1 prekindergarten teacher per classroom;
``(2) ensuring that the ratio of children to
prekindergarten teachers and teacher aides shall not exceed
10 to 1;
``(3) utilizing a prekindergarten curriculum that is
research- and evidence-based, developmentally appropriate,
and designed to support children's cognitive, social,
emotional, and physical development, and approaches to
learning;
``(4) providing a program with a minimum of a 6-hour
schedule per day; and
``(5) ensuring that prekindergarten teachers meet the
requirements of this Act.
``SEC. 668. REPORTING.
``(a) Qualified Prekindergarten Provider Reports.--Each
qualified prekindergarten provider that receives a subgrant
from a State under this Act shall submit an annual report, to
the designated State agency, that reviews the effectiveness
of the prekindergarten program provided. Such annual report
shall include--
``(1) data specifying the number and ages of enrolled
children, and the family income, race, gender, disability,
and native language of such children;
``(2) a description of--
``(A) the curriculum used by the program;
``(B) how the curriculum supports children's cognitive,
social, emotional, and physical development and approaches to
learning; and
``(C) how the curriculum is appropriate for children of the
culture, language, and ages of the children served; and
``(3) a statement of all sources of funding received by the
program, including Federal, State, local, and private funds.
``(b) State Reports.--Each State that receives a grant
under this Act shall submit an annual report to the Secretary
detailing the effectiveness of all prekindergarten programs
funded under this Act in the State.
``(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit an
annual report to Congress that describes the State programs
of assistance for prekindergarten programs funded under this
Act.
``SEC. 669. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act--
``(1) $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(2) $6,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(3) $7,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(4) $8,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
``(5) $9,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1375. A bill to ensure that new mothers and their families are
educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and
provided with essential services, and to increase research at the
National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senators
Durbin and Snowe to reintroduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help,
Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS,
Act.
Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue
and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this
important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative
Rush, who has been a champion for women battling
[[Page S6023]]
postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to
say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research
and Care Act, shares the same goals as the MOTHERS Act.
Mr. President, in the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer
from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum
depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and
often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am
introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in
silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.
Last year, the great State of New Jersey passed a first of its kind
law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their
families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the
State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The
attention of Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey, who personally
battled postpartum depression, have brought to the issue is remarkable.
Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her
struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended
for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum
depression affects women all across the country, not just in New
Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.
In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression
after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby
blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000
women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more
serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression
and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness
or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves.
People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues'',
but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and
disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and
resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate
help.
The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have
successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of
therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their
families must be educated so that they understand what might occur
after the birth of their child and when to get help. This legislation
will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their
families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and
offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum
depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check up visits.
It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who
are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing
education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers,
husbands, and families, will be able to recognize the symptoms of this
condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve.
The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to
educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help
future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum
conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to
unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The
more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression,
the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking
condition.
We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education,
screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported
and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice
anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to
their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level
of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.
____________________