[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 25 (Thursday, February 14, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1056-S1072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2638. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting
Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and
Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first
weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to
legislation that I first proposed in 1997.
Currently, we are in the midst of the most serious business of our
democracy--the primary elections to select the nominees to be our next
President. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a
vote. But recent elections have Shown us that unneeded obstacles are
preventing citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of
defective ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election
galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The
Help American Vote Act, which was enacted
[[Page S1057]]
into law in 2002, was an important step forward in establishing minimum
standards for States in the administration of Federal elections and in
providing funds to replace outdated voting systems and improve election
administration. However, there is much that still needs to be done.
With more and more voters needing to cast their ballots on election
day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it
easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to
voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own
State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee
ballot. These States constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens
of the U.S. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election
offices or at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now
conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are
critical if we are to conduct fair elections, for it has become
unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up
at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. And if we
continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken
machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create
barriers to voting.
That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal
election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November
to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a
weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots
and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to
undermine our elections.
Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period
of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern
time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous States also
open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to
close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be
inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both
Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious
observances.
Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental U.S. also
addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country,
or even a State, from influencing voting in places where polls are
still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of
buildings available for polling stations and people available to work
at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers.
Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter
turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls
without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that
holding elections on a nonworking day can increase voter turnout. In
one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends
and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter
participation rates.
In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform
recommended that we move our federal election day to a national
holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not
well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I
share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a nonworking day.
Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and
landowning voters were often coming to town anyway.
Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to
make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday
voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse
and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have
two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only
12 hours on a Tuesday, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only
one or two hours to vote. As we have seen in recent elections, long
lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer
than one or 2 hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off
at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not
enough time in a workday to vote.
With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable
norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our
Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to
participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives
in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all
aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend
may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the
integrity of future elections and full participation by as many
Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a
common sense proposal whose time has come.
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. 2638
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 ``Weekend Voting Act''.
SEC. 2. CHANGE IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND
SUNDAY.
Section 25 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 7) is amended
to read as follows:
``Sec. 25. The first Saturday and Sunday after the first
Friday in November, in every even numbered year, are
established as the days for the election, in each of the
States and Territories of the United States, of
Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on
the 3d day of January thereafter.''.
SEC. 3. CHANGE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND
SUNDAY.
Section 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``Tuesday next after the first Monday'' and
inserting ``first Saturday and Sunday after the first
Friday''.
SEC. 4. POLLING PLACE HOURS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Presidential general election.--Chapter 1 of title 3,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 1 as section 1A; and
(B) by inserting before section 1A the following:
``Sec. 1. Polling place hours
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental
United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
and the District of Columbia.
``(2) Presidential general election.--The term
`Presidential general election' means the election for
electors of President and Vice President.
``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
``(1) Polling places in the continental united states.--
Each polling place in the continental United States shall be
open, with respect to a Presidential general election,
beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern standard time and
ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern standard time.
``(2) Polling places outside the continental united
states.--Each polling place not located in the continental
United States shall be open, with respect to a Presidential
general election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local
time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. local time.
``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m.
local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in
which the polling place is located.''.
(2) Congressional general election.--Section 25 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 7) is
amended--
(A) by redesignating section 25 as section 25A; and
(B) by inserting before section 25A the following:
``SEC. 25. POLLING PLACE HOURS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental
United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
and the District of Columbia.
``(2) Congressional general election.--The term
`congressional general election' means the general election
for the office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate
or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
``(1) Polling places inside the continental united
states.--Each polling place in the continental United States
shall be open, with respect to a congressional general
election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern
standard time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern
standard time.
``(2) Polling places outside the continental united
states.--Each polling place not located in the continental
United States shall be open, with respect to a congressional
general election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local
time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. local time.
``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. local
[[Page S1058]]
time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday as
provided by the law of the State in which the polling place
is located.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 3, United
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1 and inserting the following:
``1. Polling place hours.
``1A. Time of appointing electors.''.
(2) Sections 871(b) and 1751(f) of title 18, United States
Code, are each amended by striking ``title 3, United States
Code, sections 1 and 2'' and inserting ``sections 1A and 2 of
title 3''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2641. A bill to amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to improve the transparency of information on skilled nursing
facilities and nursing facilities and to clarify and improve the
targeting of the enforcement of requirements with respect to such
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the purpose of
introducing a bill. The bill's title is the Nursing Home Transparency
and Improvement Act of 2008.
I introduce this bill along with Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. It is a
bipartisan bill. Senator Kohl, because he is in the majority, has the
distinguished pleasure of serving as chairman of a special committee on
aging which is also a very important responsibility, particularly since
our Government spends about more than $50 billion a year on nursing
home care for elderly, among other things that are the responsibility
tie of that committee.
The bill that we are introducing is an important piece of legislation
that aims to bring some overdue transparency to consumers regarding
nursing home quality. It also provides long-needed improvements to our
enforcement system.
This legislation further strengthens nursing home staff training
requirements. In America today, there are over 1.7 million elderly and
disabled individuals in roughly 17,000 nursing homes.
As the baby boom generation ages, that number probably will rise,
unless we do something about the problems of osteoporosis and
Alzheimer's and diabetes. Hopefully, we can do those things so our
nursing homes do not fill up more. But those are some of the health
problems that are facing 77 million baby boomers. Some of them
undoubtedly will end up in nursing homes.
So we have to have not only a tremendous interest in ensuring nursing
home quality based upon the number of people who are already there, but
we are going to have more in the future.
While many people are using alternatives such as home care or other
methods of community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a
critical option for our elderly and our disabled. I always think in
terms of nursing homes being at the end of a continuum of care for
people who need some help.
People want to stay in their own home. When there is a question, can
they do that without endangering them, bring some help to the home,
relatives or home health care types.
If that is not the right environment, then assisted living. And then
other things that might eventually bring a person to a nursing home.
But a nursing home is a last resort. I say that because during my
tenure as chairman of the Aging Committee from 1997 to the year 2001,
versus the period of time I was chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, dealing with a lot of aging issues, interacting with a lot
of older people, I have never once had anybody say to me that: I am
just dying to get into a nursing home.
So I think it is important we do whatever we can to keep people out
of nursing homes. But there are some people, a lot of people, and a
growing number of people who are going to need that type of care.
So we have to be concerned about the quality of care in nursing
homes. We surely owe it to them to make sure they receive the safe and
quality care they deserve. Unfortunately in many areas, the nursing
homes, we have a few bad apples always spoiling the barrel. Too many
Americans receive poor care, often in a subset of a nursing home.
Unfortunately, this subset of chronic offenders stays in business, in
many ways keeping their poor track records hidden from the public at
large and often facing little or no enforcement from the Federal
Government.
As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a
longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive
the safe and quality care we expect for our own loved ones. But this
effort requires transparency, transparency in the nursing home industry
so consumers are armed with information, consumers having information
they need to make the best decisions possible for loved ones. This same
transparency also provides additional market incentives for bad homes
to improve.
This effort also requires a strong mandatory enforcement and
monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that
would not take the steps needed to do so voluntarily.
The Grassley-Kohl legislation seeks to strengthen both areas,
transparency and enforcement. It is a bill that is good for consumers,
good for nursing home residents, and good even for the nursing home
community.
Let's look at transparency. In the market for nursing home care,
similar to all markets, consumers must have adequate data to make
informed choices. For years people looking at a nursing home for
themselves or loved ones had no way of knowing whether that home was--
this is kind of a legal term in the regulations--a ``special focus
facility,'' a designation meaning they had been singled out as a
consistently poor performer.
Why should consumers not have access to this information? The
Government has it and so should consumers. To that end, this bill
requires that the ``special focus facilities'' designation be placed on
the CMS website. Nursing Home Compare is the name of that website.
By giving consumers this information, we will both give consumers
information necessary to make informed choices and poorly performing
homes an extra incentive to shape up or consumers then can go
elsewhere.
This bill also requires more transparency about ownership
information. What is so secretive about who owns a nursing home? Also,
it provides transparency in inspection reports and more accountability
for large nursing home chains and the development of a standardized
resident complaint form so there is a clear and easy way to report
problems and have them resolved.
The bill would also bring more transparency on what portion of a
nursing home's spending is used for direct care for residents and also
bring more uniformity to the reporting of nursing staffing levels so
people can make an apples-to-apples comparison between nursing homes.
But even with improved transparency, there are some nursing homes
that will not improve on their own. In the nursing home industry, most
homes provide quality care on a consistent basis. But as in many
sectors, this industry is given a bad name by a few bad apples that
spoil the barrel.
So we need to give inspectors better enforcement tools. The current
system provides incentives to correct problems only temporarily and
allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while continuing to deliver
substandard care to residents. That system must be fixed.
In ongoing correspondence that I have had with Terry Weems, the
Acting Administrator of CMS, that agency has requested the statutory
authority to collect civil monetary penalties sooner and hold them in
escrow pending appeal. To that end, this bill requires penalties be
collected within 90 days following a hearing; after that, they be held
in escrow pending appeal.
Penalties should also be meaningful. Too often they are assessed at
the lowest possible amount, if at all. Penalties should be more than
merely the cost of doing business, they should be collected in a
reasonable timeframe and should not be rescinded easily.
These changes would help prod the industry's bad actors to get their
act together or get out of business. In addition to increased
transparency and improved enforcement, this bill provides commonsense
solutions to a number of other problems as well.
This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to establish a national independent
[[Page S1059]]
monitoring program to tackle problems specific to interstate and large
intrastate nursing home chains. This legislation directs the Government
Accountability Office to, one, conduct studies on the role, if any, of
financial problems in the poor performance of special focus facilities;
identify best practices at the State level in temporary management
programs; and, three, determine what are the barriers preventing the
purchase of nursing homes with a record of poor quality.
Finally, in the case of nursing homes being closed due to prior
safety or quality of care, the bill requires that residents and their
representatives be given a sufficient notice so they can adequately
plan a transfer to a better performing nursing home. I happen to be
very sensitive to the fact that nursing home residents are often old
and fragile. Moving them into new facilities is often very traumatic.
So we have to make sure these residents are transferred appropriately
and with the time and care deserved.
This bill would also strengthen training requirements for nursing
staff, by including dementia and abuse prevention training as part of
the preemployment training.
The Grassley-Kohl bill also requires a study on the appropriateness
of increasing training requirements for nurse aids and supervisory
staff.
I am proud to introduce this bill today, along with the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, the chairman of the Aging Committee.
He and I have a long history of working on issues together,
particularly for the elderly. We will continue to do everything we can
to make sure America's nursing home residents receive the safe and
quality care they deserve. Increasing transparency, improved
enforcement tools, and strengthening training requirements will go a
long way toward achieving this goal.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Home
Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008 with my distinguished
colleague, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley conducted a great deal of
valuable oversight for nursing homes during his tenure as Aging
Committee chairman from 1997 through 2000, and he continues to make
major contributions in this area today. Working toward higher standards
of nursing home quality is a tradition of which I am proud to be a
part.
It is staggering to think that the most recent major law dictating
Federal standards for quality, for data reporting, and for enforcement
was passed in 1987. Twenty-one years later, we know that it has spurred
important improvements in the quality of care provided in nursing
homes. Yet we are far from finished, and there are additional
improvements that need to be made.
The first is in the area of transparency. If consumers can easily
tell which homes have a solid enforcement track record, which are well-
staffed, which are owned by a chain with a good reputation for
providing excellent services--and which homes are not--then this sort
of disclosure can serve as a powerful motivation for homes to provide
the best possible care, to hire and keep the most dedicated staff, and
to always prioritize the interests of residents. The court of public
opinion and the strength of market forces are powerful and inexpensive
tools we should be putting to good use.
Our legislation will make sure all this information is available to
consumers in a timely and easy-to-use fashion. We want Americans to be
able to use the Federal Government's Web site, Nursing Home Compare,
with ease. We want Americans to have access to the type of information
that matters, such as the number of hours of care their loved one will
receive from staff every day. We want Americans to be able to use this
Web site to lodge complaints of mistreatment or neglect. These are
simple, effective ideas, and our bill will make them a reality.
The second area in need of improvement is our Government's system of
nursing home quality enforcement. Under the current system, nursing
homes that are not providing good care, or--even worse--are putting
their residents in harms way, can escape penalty from the Government by
abusing a lengthy appeal process, while they slip in and out of
compliance with Federal regulations. This is unacceptable. We need the
threat of sanctions to mean something--and under my bill with Senator
Grassley, they will. Our legislation will require that all civil
monetary penalties be collected and placed in an escrow account as soon
as they are levied, pending the final resolution of any appeal.
Financial penalties will be increased for serious quality deficiencies
that cause actual harm to nursing home residents or put them in
``immediate jeopardy.''
In addition, our policy enables regulators to respond effectively
when serious quality problems are evident in order to protect the
safety of residents. The bill requires that States and facilities
provide a secure and orderly process when relocating residents due to a
nursing home closure. It also proposes national demonstrations to
promote innovations in information technology and ``culture change'' in
order to improve resident care.
The Federal Government now spends $75 billion annually on nursing
homes through Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is projected to rise
as costs associated with the boomer generation increase. Congress has a
responsibility to demand high-quality services for residents and
accountability from the nursing home industry in return for this huge
investment of public resources. I urge my colleagues to join Senator
Grassley and myself in sponsoring this commonsense piece of
legislation.
______
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 2642. A bill to establish a national renewable energy standard, to
extend and create renewable energy tax incentives, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the American
Renewable Energy Act which I am introducing today, along with my
colleagues, Senator Snowe from Maine and Senator Cantwell from
Washington.
Last week, we passed a short-term stimulus package that will help
change the economic direction of this country by putting money in the
hands of American families, including our seniors and veterans. Last
week's action was a start, but we must begin focusing on long-term
policies that will help our economy long after these rebate checks have
been cashed. If we do not do that, we are going to be back exactly in
the place we were before. We need long-term policies that will
encourage sustainable economic growth in every corner of this country.
In January, I traveled all around my State on a Main Street tour of
Minnesota. We talked about the economic challenges facing the people of
our State, but we also talked about the opportunities. Energy was a
topic that came up everywhere. It came up when people were filling up
their cars and trucks with gas, and it came up when we talked about the
opportunities.
I visited southwestern Minnesota, which is home to hundreds of large-
scale wind turbines, helping to make Minnesota the Nation's third
largest producer of wind energy. Along with ethanol, these wind-energy
farms have spurred a rural economic renaissance in our part of the
State.
For example, in 1995, SMI & Hydraulics, Inc., began their business in
Porter, MN, primarily as a welding and cylinder repair shop for local
farmers and businesses. Today, SMI & Hydraulics manufactures the bases
for the wind towers we sell all across this country. It just recently
expanded its facility to 100,000 square feet and created over 100 new
jobs, many of which are traditional manufacturing jobs.
My colleagues have to understand, these places are like barns. They
started out as farmers' barns and have expanded and expanded as they
have been able to meet this country's rising energy needs.
The success of companies such as SMI & Hydraulics is not unique to
Minnesota. Renewable energy has been a bright spot in an otherwise
lagging economy. Last year, the renewable electricity sector pumped
more than $20 billion into the U.S. economy, generating tens of
thousands of jobs in construction, transportation, and manufacturing.
Throughout the country, renewable energy has led us down a path
toward new jobs, lower energy bills, and enhanced economic development.
That is
[[Page S1060]]
why today I am introducing this bill, along with my friends Senator
Snowe and Senator Cantwell, to help lead us further down the path to a
better, cleaner, more prosperous energy future, with new opportunities
for investment, innovation, and job creation.
Our bill, as I said, is called the American Renewable Energy Act.
There are two key elements of this legislation.
First, the American Renewable Energy Act creates strong, consistent
incentives for private sector investment in renewable energy resources
and technology by extending tax incentives, such as the production tax
credit, for 5 years. Of course, this covers wind, solar, geothermal,
hydro, and other forms of renewable energy, and making sure that is in
place so we can spur the kind of investment that will create jobs and
allow us to be on the same path other countries around the world are
on.
Second, the legislation establishes a national renewable energy
standard requiring that 20 percent of our energy come from renewable
sources, such as wind, solar, and biofuels, by the year 2025. A
national renewable energy standard will create a large market for clean
sources of energy, reducing global warming pollution, and strengthening
our economy.
Let me briefly describe each of these elements. First, the renewable
energy tax incentives. Already the industries for solar, wind, and
biomass are expanding at annual rates exceeding 30 percent. But at the
same time, we are no longer the world leader in two important clean
energy fields. Even though all the technology was developed in our
country, we rank third in wind power production behind Denmark and
Spain, and we are now third in photovoltaic power installed, behind
Germany and Japan.
Ironically, these countries surpassed us largely by adopting
technologies that had been first developed here in the United States.
We came up with the right ideas, but we didn't capitalize on these
incentives by having these innovations, by having the right policies in
place to support their commercial development and rise and support the
jobs that would have come with developing the technology. Our foreign
competition was able to leapfrog over American businesses because these
other countries have government-driven investment incentives,
aggressive renewable energy targets, and other bold national policies.
What I am proposing with my legislation is a package of tax
incentives to spur investment in advanced clean technologies to serve
the growing market for renewable energy sources. Specifically, in the
bill Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell and I are introducing today, we
want to extend and expand the existing Federal production tax credit
for renewable energy, and I want to make sure it is a long-term credit
and businesses will have the clarity and certainty they need to make
their own large-scale, long-term capital investments in these
technologies.
Currently, the production tax credit and other key energy efficiency
tax incentives are set to expire at the end of this year. Our
legislation will extend these tax incentives for 5 years.
To pay for these incentives, the legislation will repeal several tax
giveaways that currently go to the major oil companies. ExxonMobil
shattered another record profit, earning $11.7 billion last quarter and
totaling over $40 billion in profits in 2007. Big oil doesn't need
these tax incentives, but our rural economies do.
Over the years, the production tax credit has been a problem because
of its short-term green light-red light nature. The cycle begins with
strong investment and growth in the renewable power industry, thanks to
the tax incentive, but then the investment and growth slow down as the
tax incentive nears expiration and is allowed to lapse. When the
incentive gets restored, the renewable power industry takes time to
regain its footing, and then experiences strong growth again until the
incentive nears expiration again. Up and down, up and down, up and
down. It is no way to run a government policy that should be geared
toward creating more jobs in our country.
In fact, the American Wind Energy Association has recently noted that
the slowdown in wind industry activity actually starts about 8 months
before the tax credit's expiration date. These are large-scale,
capital-intensive projects that often take long years to develop. But
uncertainty about the future of the production tax credit discourages
project development and investment. Extending the tax credit for 5
years would create a much stronger incentive and investment environment
for renewable energy development.
Simply put, a new economic sector is emerging. It is one that can
shift the Nation's economy to clean energy production, generation, and
use. But without the continued support of tax incentives to help this
emerging industry compete on a level playing field, the opportunity
will be lost.
Over the past few years, the solar energy industry has witnessed
unprecedented growth. This growth pumped over $2 billion into the U.S.
economy and created 6,000 new jobs. Developing solar energy is an
economic engine for our country. From 2006 to 2007, the job base in the
solar energy industry grew by 103 percent. Almost all of this growth is
directly attributable to the solar investment tax credits that are
scheduled to expire at the end of this year. If we allow these credits
to expire, those jobs will dry up. We will lose out on creating new
companies and we will lose out on creating new opportunities for clean
energy.
I have focused on wind and solar, but there are amazing opportunities
in other renewable energy fields, including hydro. There are amazing
opportunities with geothermal. But we are never going to reach the full
potential for jobs in this country if we keep going back and forth, up
and down. We have to have a policy that is geared to the long term.
I will also say that in visiting with farmers and ranchers around our
State, the other thing we need to do--but we will have to focus on in
another bill--is look at creating incentives for individuals and small
businesses that may want to put up their own wind turbine. That is a
subject for another day, but we have to do everything we can to promote
this renewable energy.
The second element in this legislation would provide an additional
incentive for investment in renewable energy technology and resources.
It would establish an aggressive, nationwide renewable electricity
standard, one requiring that all electricity providers generate or
purchase 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the
year 2025.
Currently, as I show on this chart here, there are 24 States, plus
the District of Columbia, that have renewable electricity standards.
Together, these States account for more than half of the electricity
sales in the United States. You can see what these States are doing
here. All on their own, the States have risen to the occasion, and
said: Well, the Federal Government isn't doing anything, so I guess we
will do it on our own.
California is at 20 percent, Minnesota at 27.4 percent by 2025--one
of the most aggressive standards in the country. Bipartisan agreement,
a Democratic legislature, and a Republican Governor reached this
agreement with our utilities, including Excel Industry signing on and
not opposing this agreement. We have New York at 24 percent, Wisconsin
at 10 percent by 2015; 15 percent by 2015 for Montana--15 percent by
2020. Look at these States along the way, all over this country, and we
are seeing these standards taking place.
While Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and other States are already
headed down the path toward a new clean energy economy, the Federal
Government hasn't even made it to the trail yet. The Federal Government
is still stuck in the fossil age. There is a famous phrase: ``the
laboratories of democracy.'' That is how Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system. In
this model, States are where new ideas emerge and innovative proposals
are tested. But Brandeis did not mean for this to serve as an excuse
for inaction by the Federal Government. Good ideas and successful
innovations are supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a
model for national policy and action. The responsibility is on us.
We know what is going on in these States around the country. The
courage we are seeing in the States as they
[[Page S1061]]
seize opportunities offered by renewable energy should be matched by
courage in Washington. I think it is time for the Federal Government to
follow the lead of Minnesota, Washington, Maine, and other States
around the country and adopt a forward-looking renewable energy
standard.
There are many benefits from having a strong national standard. It
would save money for American consumers, as much as $100 billion in
lower electricity and natural gas bills. It would aid in the fight
against climate change by preventing well over 3 billion tons of carbon
dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere by 2030. It would create
jobs and increase income across the country, especially in rural areas.
Each large utility-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates over
$1.5 million in economic activity. Each turbine provides about $5,000
in lease payments for 20 years or more to farmers, ranchers, or other
landowners.
You can see from this chart the job creation with this national
renewable electricity standard set at 20 percent--355,000 new jobs,
nearly twice as much as generating electricity from fossil fuels; $72.6
billion in new capital investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers,
ranchers, and rural landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenues.
Then look at these consumer savings--$49 billion in lower electricity
and natural gas bills; a healthier environment; reductions in global
warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road;
less air pollution, damage to land, and less water use. These are the
benefits.
We pay for it by taking back some of those tax giveaways we give to
those oil companies--ExxonMobil, $11.7 billion in one quarter. So are
we going to give them more money or try to create 355,000 new jobs in
this country? That is the choice.
I believe the combination of an aggressive renewable electricity
standard and a strong package of tax incentives can begin to move our
Nation to a new, cleaner, and more prosperous energy path. It is long
overdue. The private sector is already beginning to invest in this
energy future, and they are ready to invest more. But our Government
must provide the right policies and incentives so they will be prepared
to make the large-scale, long-term investments that are required to
make it happen.
The opportunities are enormous for creating new technologies, new
industries, new businesses, and new jobs, while at the same time
promoting our energy independence, strengthening our national security,
and protecting our global environment. This piece of legislation,
cosponsored by my friends Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell, this
bipartisan piece of legislation is about leading the new economy, not
following along; not doing countless rebate checks after rebate
checks--which we need to do right now, but we are never going to get on
the path to a new economic future unless we lead the way, and this is
Washington's time to lead. This is about making America the global
energy leader instead of the lagger. It is about creating a better
economy for the next generation by leading a whole new industry. It is
about not being complacent. It is about getting on a new energy path.
I believe an aggressive renewable electricity standard, coupled with
strong tax incentives, leads us down this path. I urge all of my
colleagues to support the American Renewable Energy Act.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2647. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fan assisted,
plugin, scented oil dispensing, electrothermic appliances; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would temporarily suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air
fresheners imported by S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine,
WI.
I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in
our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has
enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps
manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2001, Wisconsin has been hit
hard, losing over 63,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing
sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity and higher standards
of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods.
The production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so
many Amerian families healthy and strong.
This legislation would suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air
fresheners which S.C. Johnson assembles and packages in Racine, WI.
Currently, there is no domestic manufacturer, which forces S.C. Johnson
to import the product that has a 2.7 percent tariff. Suspending the
tariff will cut production costs, keep jobs at home and allow S.C.
Johnson to be more competitive in the global marketplace.
S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and
today is one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products
including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect
repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 3,000
people in Wisconsin and provides products in more than 110 countries
around the world.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2648. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to
improve programs carried out through youth opportunity grants, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the STEP-UP
Act. The STEP-UP Act is a comprehensive policy solution directed toward
fighting unemployment, particularly among less educated African
American men, by implementing innovative and
successful job training efforts and improving existing tools like the
Earned Income Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
In America and my home state of New York there is a growing crisis of
joblessness for African American men. The crisis is profound,
persistent and perplexing. Across the country and in our own backyard,
far too many black men lack an adequate education and face difficulty
finding and keeping work. The numbers are staggering and getting worse.
Poverty is not new. African American disadvantage is--sadly--not new.
But now is the time for fresh solutions and urgent action, especially
now that we are facing an economic recession. We know all too well,
that when our economy faces a downturn, the most vulnerable members of
the labor force face the greatest challenges in the job market.
My goal today is to both shine a firm spotlight on a problem has
received scant attention, inadequate resources, intermittent focus and
poor coordination and also to introduce legislation that will offer
some solid, practical steps forward. To be clear, the provisions in the
STEP-UP ACT will be open to all Americans, but the legislation contains
services and incentives that are particularly needed among young
African American men.
I am introducing the STEP-UP ACT for several reasons.
First, the problem of African American male unemployment is severe
and it is worsening. Consider this: In 2000, 65 percent of black male
high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless--in other words not
looking or unable to find work--and by 2004, the share had grown to 72
percent ``jobless.'' That translates to almost one out of three men. By
comparison the rate for white male high school dropouts was 34
percent and Hispanic males 19 percent. Between 1992 and 1999--the
greatest economic expansion in our nation's history--the labor force
participation of young black men actually declined from 83.5 percent to
79.4 percent. Clearly the rising tide did not lift all boats.
Second, there is an unprecedented need to fill unskilled and semi
skilled jobs across the countries as baby boomers retire, and there is
a large supply of jobless black men who could fill them.
Third, after much trial and error, we now have several successful job
training programs that work, as well as federal policy options with a
proven track record of making a real difference in the labor force. Yet
sadly, while the programs are finally working, the Federal funding has
gone down by 90 percent.
There is a complex interplay of forces that led us to this point, and
many of them are familiar culprits such as: failing schools,
dysfunctional families, high incarceration rates, overt and subtle
racism, and the decimation of
[[Page S1062]]
manufacturing jobs that typically afforded opportunities to men.
All these political, cultural, economic and personal elements combine
to erect a steeplechase of barriers that is far too difficult to
traverse for far too many urban black men.
While this is a sensitive subject, there is also a subculture of the
street that provides easy money and allows some to eschew personal
responsibility. But we can't sit passively by and let that subculture
claim another generation of these men. The public sector--on all
levels--has an obligation to intercede. The Reverend Johnny Ray
Youngblood, a pastor and friend of mine from Brooklyn, said it best:
``Government has a moral responsibility to compete against, and win
against, subcultures that are immoral, illegal and really inhuman.''
Let me be clear: there is a host of dedicated, even heroic, leaders
who have been addressing these issues every day for years. There are
ideas and leaders out there can turn this problem around. However, on
the Federal level, there has been no comprehensive public policy
response to this situation. We have allowed the problems of black men
to grow worse unabated.
Last year, as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I held a
hearing on this very issue. Our witnesses provided testimony that
vividly illustrated how devastating this crisis truly is. This hearing
was an eye-opener for me and my colleagues. The hearing also began a
dialog in Congress on how we can move forward legislatively to expand
job opportunities and incentives for African American men.
I believe there is a rare confluence of forces that should be
exploited--now--to ramp up efforts to aggressively attack the plight of
jobless black men. The American labor force is in transition and
therein lies the opportunity. By 2010 as many as 64 million Americans
from the generations born before and after World War II will approach
retirement age. Over this period we will be losing 20 percent of our
entire workforce--a turnover rate the likes of which our country has
never experienced.
Many of the new jobs I am speaking about don't require college
degrees, many are entry level, but many can pay upwards of $40,000 with
benefits. And the best part is, they can't be outsourced or downsized--
because they're crucial to keeping cities working. A nurse, welder,
mechanic or long-haul commercial driver doesn't do us any good if he or
she is working in Bangalore. We have never before had such a clear
picture of where the jobs will be--or what we have to do to connect our
struggling young people to them.
What we need to do now is ensure that black men have access to the
best, most successful job training programs that can prepare them for
these jobs. After years of trying, I believe there is a new paradigm
for job training that will make this possible. For the past year, I
have been working on the STEP-UP Act to do just that.
Let me tell you about one innovative job training program that was
founded in East Harlem but has been replicated successfully throughout
the United States and Europe: its called STRIVE and it offers some good
clues on what makes a job program work.
Here is the most important thing you need to know about STRIVE: 70
percent of their graduates retain their jobs after 2 years, compared to
a 40 percent city-wide average. I visited them to see firsthand how
they do it. It impressed me so much I brought 3 Senators to visit
STRIVE's offices in Washington, DC, and it blew their hair back as
well.
First, STRIVE's core program does not begin with teaching
participants how to read an account ledger or hammer in a nail. It
begins with what they call ``soft skills'' like how to dress for work,
interact with your boss and superiors, and accept criticism. Seems
obvious enough, but for many it is harder than it should be to tell the
difference between constructive criticism and a provocative ``dis''
that, in the code of the street, demands an aggressive reaction.
In addition to focusing on those elemental ``soft skills,'' STRIVE
provides intensive follow-up, long-term involvement with additional
training opportunities, and wrap-around services to address the whole
host of obstacles that black men face when trying to enter and remain
in the workforce.
Our current Federal job-training program--the Workforce Investment
Act--WIA--has been steadily underfunded in recent years. To give a
sense of how much we have walked away from such initiatives, in 1978 we
spent $9.5 billion on jobs programs--$30 billion in today's dollars. In
2007 we spent only $5.1 billion. On top of that, WIA does not mandate
or even encourage the STRIVE model. The WIA program hasn't been
reauthorized since it expired in 2003 and it needs to be updated to
incorporate the lessons of STRIVE.
My bill, the STEP-UP Act, moves our job training agenda closer to the
STRIVE model. If we can duplicate some semblage of STRIVE's 70 percent
success rates--which they have duplicated in 22 locations around the
country--we can begin to really move the employment needle in the right
direction.
The STEP-UP Act reauthorizes funding for the Youth Opportunity
Program, YO, which was originally established in 1998 to provide grants
to programs that offer intensive job training and placement services
for hard-to-serve youth between the ages of 16 to 24. When it was
created, the YO program was meant to be the ``model'' job training
program, the shining star in a system replete with false starts and
failed efforts. It drew on the best practices from a generation of
previous job training efforts, understanding that attacking the scourge
of unemployment meant offering comprehensive services to at risk youth.
Preparing young men and women for the workforce has to be more than
just teaching someone to touch-type or hammer a nail. A job training
program can put anyone into a job, but their efforts will only be
successful if we give them a comprehensive skill set and support
services.
This legislation draws on the strengths of the YO program but makes
some important modifications based on the experience of grantees.
First, programs that receive YO grants will be required to provide
``wrap-around'' services. This means not only workforce training, but
also those ``soft skills'' that are so essential to keeping a job.
Secondly, the STEP-UP Act encourages grantees to engage with local
resources, such as labor organizations, educational institutions, as
well as the private sector. By bringing in private businesses, we can
truly bridge the gap between training and employment.
Finally, to make sure we don't travel willy-nilly down the same path,
we must invest in proven models, we must track progress and we must
make adjustments to improve programs as the facts flow in. That is why
the STEP-UP Act mandates strict oversight of job training programs that
will participate in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs. My bill
requires the Secretary of Labor to perform evaluations of participants
after the 24 months and report to Congress on the best practices
implemented by participants. Too frequently, we have funded job
training efforts but we have not demanded results. The Department of
Labor needs to dedicate themselves to understanding what programs work
best and why.
To summarize for a moment: we know the jobs are out there for young
black men, we know there are training programs that work, so what's the
missing link? The missing link is ensuring that work pays well enough
to help lure young men into the workforce.
Given the limited earning potential for many young African American
males, there can be a lot of bottom line reasons not to work in the
formal economy. Working a tough job in a warehouse for $7 an hour would
put less than $300 a week and around $13,000 a year in your pocket. In
2008, those wages don't go too far.
We need to make work pay for African American men.
The STEP-UP Act offers an economic incentive to join the workforce
through a targeted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. My
bill doubles the current credit from $438 up to $875. Effectively, this
broadens the scope of the credit and you will be able to receive some
credit up until your income reaches $22,880. For someone without kids
or a family to support, the extra money you would get from this program
would make a real difference.
[[Page S1063]]
The second thing my bill does is extend the EITC to those low-wage
earners who have kids and are current on their child support payments.
There are lots of men out there who really want to work and do right by
their families. It can be an uphill battle for them, but many find a
way to make it happen.
Considering that about a third of low-income noncustodial fathers
nationwide are black, a federal EITC expansion could have a big impact
for them. Here is how my bill does it: If you are a dad paying your
child support, the existing childless tax credit is quadrupled from
$438 to $1,719 a year. This is still much smaller than the credit a
family with one child will receive, which is $2,917 in 2008.
Let me be clear: enhancing the EITC is not just about getting men
working but about strengthening families, and encouraging low-income
fathers to fulfill their parenting responsibilities and stay current on
their child support payments. Studies have documented a direct
correlation between fathers who pay child support and their involvement
in their children's lives. If we can get men working and they become a
positive force in the lives of their sons and daughters, we will have
achieved two very worthy objectives.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is just one example of a tax incentive
that translates to real dollars for working families. Another issue
that I want to address is the problem of keeping people in the
workforce. Too many men are cycling in and out of employment. We need
to make steady employment pay.
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC, is one incentive that I
think needs to be strengthened and modified. Currently, WOTC is only a
credit for employers, and at its maximum it is worth $2,400 if the
worker is employed for 400 hours or more. So if a worker making $7 an
hour stays on the job for about 5 months, then his employer gets the
maximum credit, but he does not receive anything for hitting this
benchmark.
The STEP-UP Act expands WOTC to include employees so that it is not
only an employer credit, and to maximize its potential over time.
Specifically, once a worker has reached 1,500 hours on the job, or 52
weeks, both the employer and employee should get a $500 credit. We need
to encourage employers to really invest in their workers and to ensure
that workers are staying on the job.
Today I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
carefully consider this legislation. Given the severity of the African
American jobless problem and the unprecedented opportunity that will
result from the mass retirement of workers from the post war
generation, shame on us if we do not figure out how to take action to
put people who want to work into jobs that pay. It is up to us to align
these tools and make them work. We must. Not only must it be a moral
imperative that we give more opportunity to African American men, it
must be a national imperative to keep our country competitive in the
21st century. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and take
this initial step towards success.
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. 2648
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 ``Supporting Training and
Employment Potential for Underemployed Populations Act'' or
the ``STEP UP Act''.
TITLE I--YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Finding employment that provides steady income and a
career track is a problem for young, undereducated men and
women who lack educational credentials and are disconnected
from the labor market.
(2) That problem is particularly acute for young African-
American men. In 2006, over \1/5\, or 21.8 percent, of black
men ages 16 through 24 were unemployed. This is roughly
double the unemployment rate for all young men (11.2
percent).
(3) Even over a period of relative economic growth,
employment for disconnected African-American men has
declined. In 1999, 65 percent of African-American male high
school dropouts were jobless and not looking for work. In
2004, that rate had risen to 72 percent.
(4) The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was established in
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide intensive job
training and placement activities as well as other
educational, social, and recreational services to at-risk,
hard-to-serve youth.
(5) The Youth Opportunity Grant Program built upon the most
promising strategies of previous demonstration programs that
strongly suggest the effectiveness of intensive case
management and follow-up services in assisting disconnected
young men and women in finding long-term employment.
(6) By reauthorizing and refining the Youth Opportunity
Grant Program, Congress could help make strides against those
serious problems faced by both young African-American men and
other disconnected youth.
(7) Over the course of the Youth Opportunity Grant Program,
36 localities with high poverty rates received funding
through grants. The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was
effective in assisting hard-to-reach populations. The
Department of Labor estimates that 42 percent of the eligible
youth and 62 percent of the eligible out-of-school youth in
the target areas enrolled in the Youth Opportunity Grant
Program.
(8) Further understanding of the successes of, challenges
faced by, and shortcomings of, the Youth Opportunity Grant
Program in the past, and in the future, will require
extensive evaluation and study by the Department of Labor.
SEC. 102. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.
Section 169 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2914) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 169. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.
``(a) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Using funds made available under
subsection (j), the Secretary shall make grants to eligible
local boards described in subsection (c) and eligible
entities described in subsection (d) to carry out programs
that provide activities described in subsection (b) for youth
and young adults. The boards and entities shall carry out the
programs to increase the long-term employment of youth and
young adults who seek assistance and who live in empowerment
zones, enterprise communities, or high poverty areas.
``(2) Definition.--In this section:
``(A) Hard-to-serve young adult.--The term `hard-to-serve
young adult' means an individual who is--
``(i) not less than age 25 and not more than age 30; and
``(ii)(I) an unemployed individual;
``(II) a school dropout;
``(III) an individual who has not received a secondary
school diploma or its recognized equivalent;
``(IV) an ex-offender; or
``(V) a noncustodial parent with a child support
obligation.
``(B) Youth or young adult.--The term `youth or young
adult' means an individual who is not less than age 14 and
not more than age 30.
``(3) Grant period.--The Secretary may make a grant under
this section for a 2-year period, and may renew the grant for
each of the 3 succeeding years.
``(4) Grant awards.--In making grants under this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that grants are distributed
equitably among local boards and entities serving urban areas
and local boards and entities serving rural areas, taking
into consideration the poverty rate in such urban and rural
areas, as described in subsection (c)(3)(B).
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A local board or entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use the funds made available
through the grant to provide job training and employment
activities and related services, including--
``(A) activities that meet the requirements of section 129;
``(B) youth development activities such as activities
relating to leadership development, citizenship, and re-entry
from the justice and juvenile justice systems, community
service, and recreation activities; and
``(C)(i) workforce preparation and attitudinal training;
``(ii) sector-specific skills training as described in
subsection (f)(1)(D);
``(iii) educational completion services, including classes
that lead to a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent (and programs to prepare for such a class),
remedial reading and mathematics classes (including classes
to prepare an individual to read and do mathematics at a
college level), and skills certification and credentialing
programs;
``(iv) access to internships, transitional jobs, work
experience, and nontraditional employment opportunities;
``(v) access to other services either directly or through
an organization that enters into a strategic partnership
described in subsection (e) with the local board or entity,
including parenting classes for fathers and mothers,
financial literacy services, services to improve health care
(and mental health care) treatment and access, and services
to improve access to affordable housing and shelter; and
``(vi) assistance in obtaining the earned income credit
under section 32 of the Internal
[[Page S1064]]
Revenue Code of 1986 and obtaining benefits through
government entitlement programs, such as the Medicaid program
under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et
seq.) and unemployment compensation programs, as well as
other State and local entitlement programs that may be
applicable.
``(2) Intensive placement and follow-up services.--In
providing activities under this section, a local board or
entity shall provide--
``(A) intensive placement services; and
``(B) follow-up services, including case management, every
2 months for not less than 24 months after the completion of
participation in the other activities described in this
subsection, as appropriate.
``(3) Limitation on use for hard-to-serve young adults.--
The local board or entity shall not use more than 25 percent
of the funds made available through the grant to provide
activities for hard-to-serve young adults.
``(c) Eligible Local Boards.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, a local board shall serve a
community that--
``(1) has been designated as an empowerment zone or
enterprise community under section 1391 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986;
``(2)(A) is a State without a zone or community described
in paragraph (1); and
``(B) has been designated as a high poverty area by the
Governor of the State; or
``(3) is 1 of 2 areas in a State that--
``(A) have been designated by the Governor as areas for
which a local board may apply for a grant under this section;
and
``(B) meet the poverty rate criteria set forth in
subsections (a)(4), (b), and (d) of section 1392 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(d) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, an entity (other than a local board)
shall--
``(1) be a recipient of financial assistance under section
166; and
``(2) serve a community that--
``(A) meets the poverty rate criteria set forth in
subsections (a)(4), (b), and (d) of section 1392 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(B) is located on an Indian reservation or serves
Oklahoma Indians, or Native villages or Native groups (as
such terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)).
``(e) Strategic Partnerships.--
``(1) Local boards.--An eligible local board may--
``(A) work independently to provide activities under this
section; or
``(B) enter into a strategic partnership to provide
activities under this section with 1 or more entities
consisting of--
``(i) a community-based job training provider who is an
eligible provider identified in accordance with section
122(e)(3), or another provider selected by the local board;
``(ii) State or local government entities;
``(iii) labor organizations;
``(iv) other entities described in the statement of need
required by subsection (f)(1)(C);
``(v) private sector employers;
``(vi) educational institutions, including secondary
schools (which may be public schools, parochial schools, or
other private schools) or community colleges; or
``(vii) entities in the judicial system, entities in the
juvenile justice system, or organizations representing
probation and parole officers.
``(2) Entities.--An eligible entity may--
``(A) work independently to provide activities under this
section; or
``(B) enter into a strategic partnership to provide
activities under this section with--
``(i) the local board; and
``(ii) 1 or more entities described in paragraph (1)(B).
``(f) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local board or entity shall submit an
application (individually or as part of a strategic
partnership described in subsection (e)) to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require, including--
``(1)(A) a description of the activities that the local
board or entity will provide under this section to youth and
young adults in the community described in subsection (c) or
(d);
``(B) a description of the strategic partnership referred
to in subsection (e), if any, that the applicant intends to
enter into to provide activities under this section;
``(C)(i) information describing how the applicant will
coordinate the planning and implementation of the activities
to be carried out under the grant with entities serving youth
in the community involved, including the one-stop operator
and one-stop partners in the local workforce investment
system, educational institutions including institutions of
higher education, child welfare agencies, entities in the
juvenile justice system, foster care agencies, and such other
community-based organizations as may be appropriate; and
``(ii) a statement of need for the community;
``(D) information identifying employment sectors in the
local and regional economy that could employ youth and young
adults served under the grant and a plan to provide sector-
specific skills training for jobs in those sectors and
employment opportunities in those sectors; and
``(E) information identifying the specific role, if any,
that private sector employers in growing employment sectors
in the local and regional economy will play in that plan,
including information describing their skills training
curricula and job placement programs;
``(2) a description of the performance measures negotiated
under subsection (h), and the manner in which the local
boards or entities will carry out the activities to meet the
performance measures;
``(3) a description of the manner in which the activities
will be linked to activities described in section 129; and
``(4) a description of the community support, including
financial support through leveraging additional public and
private resources, for the activities.
``(g) Consideration.--In making grants under this section,
the Secretary shall give special consideration to a local
board or entity that submits an application under subsection
(f) as part of a strategic partnership described in
subsection (e) that includes a private sector employer if the
employer agrees to--
``(1) commit to hire youth and young adults who complete
the program carried out under the grant involved;
``(2) provide personnel, facilities, equipment, and a
skills training curriculum for the program;
``(3) provide internships, mentoring, and apprenticeship
opportunities for participants in the program; or
``(4) provide funding, scholarships, and access to
specified employer-based resources for the program.
``(h) Performance Measures.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall negotiate and reach
agreement with the local board or entity on performance
measures, for the indicators of performance referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 136(b)(2), that will be
used under paragraph (3) to evaluate the performance of the
local board or entity in carrying out the activities
described in subsection (b). Each local performance measure
shall consist of such an indicator of performance, and a
performance level referred to in paragraph (2).
``(2) Performance levels.--The Secretary shall negotiate
and reach agreement with the local board or entity regarding
the--
``(A) overall performance levels expected to be achieved by
the local board or entity on the indicators of performance;
and
``(B) separate performance levels for those indicators for
the performance of the board or entity--
``(i) regarding participants in the activities who are not
less than age 14 and not more than age 24; and
``(ii) regarding participants in the activities who are not
less than age 25 and not more than age 30.
``(3) Evaluations and reports.--
``(A) Evaluations.--
``(i) Evaluations of prior activities.--Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of the Supporting Training
and Employment Potential for Underemployed Populations Act,
the Secretary shall complete the evaluations described in
paragraph (1) of local boards and entities, using performance
measures with overall performance levels described in
paragraph (2)(A), concerning activities carried out under
subsection (b) prior to that date of enactment.
``(ii) Evaluations of new activities.--Not later than 2
years after a local board or entity receives a grant under
this section after that date of enactment, the Secretary
shall conduct the evaluations described in paragraph (1) of
that local board or entity, using performance measures with
overall performance levels described in paragraph (2)(A) and
performance measures with separate performance levels
described in paragraph (2)(B).
``(iii) Comparison groups.--The evaluations conducted under
this paragraph shall include evaluations of carefully matched
comparison groups.
``(B) Reports.--The Secretary shall prepare a report, based
on the evaluations described in subparagraph (A)(i), that
contains the baseline data obtained and that begins to detail
the best practices of recipients of grants under this section
throughout the Nation. The Secretary shall prepare an annual
report, based on the evaluations described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), that contains the data obtained and that details the
best practices of recipients of grants under this section
throughout the Nation, with attention to how different
activities impact both different demographic sectors of the
population and different age groups in the population.
``(4) Use.--If the Secretary, in conducting evaluations
under paragraph (3), determines that a local board or entity
fails to meet the performance measures for 2 fiscal years,
the local board or entity shall not be eligible to receive a
grant under this section for a subsequent fiscal year.
``(i) Incentives for Business Partners.--The Secretary
shall establish a plan to increase the availability of bonds
through the Federal Bonding Program carried out through the
Employment and Training Administration to employers that are
partners in the programs carried out under this section.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Section 127 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2852) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``sections'' and inserting ``section''; and
[[Page S1065]]
(B) by striking ``and 169'' and all that follows and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``provide youth
opportunity'' and all that follows through ``grants) and'';
and
(B) by striking clause (iv).
TITLE II--EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT ENHANCEMENT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Earned Income Tax Credit
Enhancement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The earned income tax credit is considered one of the
most successful antipoverty programs in the United States.
Previous expansions of the earned income tax credit in the
1990s were instrumental in lifting families, especially
single parents, out of poverty by increasing income and
building assets.
(2) However, the earned income tax credit provides little
assistance for childless workers and noncustodial parents.
The credit for childless workers is only 15 percent of the
credit for a worker with 1 child.
(3) Increasing the maximum earned income tax credit amount
for childless workers would help to lift more individuals out
of poverty and mirror the successful credit expansion of the
1990s. Additionally, lowering the age of eligibility will
extend this important credit to the growing population of
young adults living in poverty.
(4) Although the effectiveness of the work opportunity tax
credit has come under scrutiny, the credit is limited in
scope. The credit is only available to employers and offers
no benefits to employees to encourage job retention.
Additionally, the credit only addresses short-term job
retention, not long-term employment.
(5) Expanding the work opportunity credit to employees and
increasing the time period of the credit's availability could
provide greater incentives for employees to stay in their
jobs and for employers to retain these workers over long-term
periods.
SEC. 203. ENHANCEMENTS TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.
(a) Credit Allowed for Certain Childless Individuals Over
Age 18.--
(1) In general.--Subclause (II) of section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible
individual) is amended by striking ``age 25'' and inserting
``age 21''.
(2) Exception for full-time students.--Paragraph (1) of
section 32(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Exception for full time students.--The term `eligible
individual' shall not include any individual described in
subparagraph (A)(ii) if such individual has not attained the
age of 25 before the close of the taxable year and is a full
time student for more than one half of such taxable year.''.
(b) Modification of Credit Amount for Individuals Without
Qualifying Children.--
(1) Modification of credit percentage.--The last row in the
table in section 32(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``7.65'' in the middle column and
inserting ``15.30''.
(2) Modification of phaseout amount.--Subparagraph (A) of
section 32(b)(2) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B)--
``(i) in the case of an eligible individual with 1
qualifying child--
``(I) the earned income amount is $6,330, and
``(II) the phaseout amount is $11,610,
``(ii) in the case of an eligible individual with 2 or more
qualifying children--
``(I) the earned income amount is $8,890, and
``(II) the phaseout amount is $11,610, and
``(iii) in the case of an eligible individual with no
qualifying children--
``(I) the earned income amount is $4,220, and
``(II) the phaseout amount is 200 percent of the dollar
amount applicable under subclause (I).''.
(c) Increased Credit for Certain Individuals Without
Qualifying Children.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the following:
``(B) Increased credit for certain individuals without
qualifying children.--In the case of an eligible individual
described in subparagraph (C), the credit percentage under
subparagraph (A) shall be 30.6 percent.
``(C) Eligible individual described.--An eligible
individual is described in this subparagraph with respect to
a taxable year if--
``(i) with respect to such eligible individual for the
taxable year, another individual--
``(I) bears a relationship to the eligible individual
described in section 152(c)(2),
``(II) meets the requirements of section 152(c)(3), and
``(III) has the same principal place of abode as the
eligible individual for less than one-half of such taxable
year,
``(ii) such eligible individual is required to make child
support payments with respect to the individual described in
clause (i), and
``(iii) such eligible individual has made all such required
child support payments during the taxable year.
For purposes of clause (iii), an eligible individual shall be
treated as having made all required child support payments
during a taxable year if such eligible individual has made
child support payments in an amount not less than the total
amount of child support payments required for such eligible
individual for such taxable year.''.
(2) Notification of failure to pay child support.--Section
464(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 664(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary shall use notices of past-due support
under this section in administering the earned income tax
credit under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
for eligible individuals described in subsection (b)(1)(C) of
such section. The regulations promulgated pursuant to this
subsection shall require States to submit such notices at a
time adequate to allow the Secretary to properly administer
such credit for such individuals.''.
(d) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Section 901 of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset provisions) shall not apply to the amendments made by
section 303 of such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief
for earned income credit; earned income to include only
amounts includible in gross income; simplification of earned
income credit).
(e) Election to Average Earned Income.--Paragraph (2) of
section 32(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Election to Average Earned Income.--
``(1) In general.--Under rules established by the
Secretary, in the case of an eligible individual who has made
an election under this subsection, subsection (a) shall be
applied--
``(A) by substituting `the taxpayer's 2-year averaged
earned income' for `the taxpayer's earned income for the
taxable year' in paragraph (1) thereof, and
``(B) by substituting `2-year averaged earned income' for
`earned income' in paragraph (2)(B) thereof.
``(2) 2-year averaged earned income.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `2-year averaged earned income' means,
with respect to any taxable year, the average of--
``(A) the taxpayer's earned income for such taxable year,
and
``(B) the taxpayer's earned income for the preceding
taxable year.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
SEC. 204. CARRYBACK AND CARRYFORWARD OF STANDARD DEDUCTION
AND PERSONAL EXEMPTION DEDUCTIONS.
(a) Standard Deduction.--Section 63 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to taxable income defined) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Carryback and Carryforward of Deductions for
Individuals Who Do Not Itemize.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an eligible taxpayer, if
the sum of the deductions described in subsection (b) exceeds
the amount of the adjusted gross income of such taxpayer for
such taxable year (hereinafter in this subsection referred to
as the `unused deduction year'), such excess may be--
``(A) carried back to the preceding taxable year, and
``(B) carried forward to each of the 2 taxable years
following the unused deduction year
``(2) Amount carried to each year.--
``(A) Entire amount carried to first year.--The entire
amount of the unused deduction for an unused deduction year
shall be carried to the earliest of the 3 taxable years to
which (by reason of paragraph (1)) such deduction may be
carried.
``(B) Amount carried to other 2 years.--The amount of the
unused deduction for the unused deduction year shall be
carried to each of the other 2 taxable years to the extent
that such unused deduction may not be used for a prior
taxable year because of the amount of adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for such taxable year.
``(3) Eligible taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `eligible taxpayer' means, with respect to any
taxable year, a taxpayer with respect to whom a credit under
section 32 is allowable for such taxable year.''.
(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. 205. ADVANCED REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR MEMBERS OF TARGETED
GROUPS.
(a) Allowance of Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as
section 37 and by inserting after section 35 the following
new section:
``SEC. 36. EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR MEMBERS OF TARGETED GROUPS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
individual, there shall be allowed as credit against the tax
imposed by this title for the taxable year an amount equal to
$500.
``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `eligible individual' means an
individual who is a member of a targeted group and--
``(A) who--
``(i) has worked exactly 1,500 hours for an employer during
any period beginning on the date such individual was hired
and ending with or within the taxable year, and
[[Page S1066]]
``(ii) was continuously employed by such employer during
such period, or
``(B) who--
``(i) began work with an employer during any 52-week period
ending with or within such taxable year, and
``(ii) was continuously employed by such employer during
such 52-week period.
``(2) Member of a targeted group.--The term `member of a
targeted group' has the meaning given such term under section
51(d).
``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(1) only 1 employer may be taken into account with
respect to any eligible individual for any taxable year, and
``(2) an individual may not be treated as an eligible
individual more than once with respect to any employer.
For purposes of this subsection, rules similar to the rules
of subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 shall apply.
``(d) Coordination With Advance Payments.--
``(1) Recapture of excess advance payments.--If any payment
is made to the individual by an employer under section 3511
during any calendar year, then the tax imposed by this
chapter for the individual's last taxable year beginning in
such calendar year shall be increased by the aggregate amount
of such payments.
``(2) Reconciliation of payments advanced and credit
allowed.--Any increase in tax under paragraph (1) shall not
be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
determining the amount of any credit (other than the credit
allowed by subsection (a)) allowed under this part.
``(e) Coordination With Certain Means Tested Programs.--For
purposes of--
``(1) the United States Housing Act of 1937,
``(2) title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
``(3) section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1965,
``(4) sections 221(d)(3), 235, and 236 of the National
Housing Act, and
``(5) the Food Stamp Act of 1977,
sany refund made to an individual (or the spouse of an
individual) by reason of this section, and any payment made
to such individual (or such spouse) by an employer under
section 3511, shall not be treated as income (and shall not
be taken into account in determining resources for the month
of its receipt and the following month).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period at the end ``, or
enacted by section 204 of the Earned Income Tax Credit
Enhancement Act of 2007''.
(B) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by redesignating the item relating to section
36 as relating to section 37 and by inserting after the item
relating to section 35 the following new item:
``Sec. 36. Employment credit for members of targeted groups.''.
(b) Advanced Payments.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 25 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to general provisions relating to employment
taxes) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 3511. ADVANCED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR
MEMBERS OF TARGETED GROUPS.
``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, every employer making a payment of wages for a
payroll period to an individual who is an eligible employee
with respect to such payroll period shall, at the time of
paying such wages, make an additional payment to such
employee of $500.
``(b) Eligible Employee.--For purposes of this section, the
term `eligible employee' means, with respect to any payroll
period, an individual--
``(1) who is an eligible individual (as defined by section
36(b)), and
``(2) with respect to whom an eligibility certificate under
this section is in effect.
``(c) Eligibility Certificate.--For purposes of this title,
an eligibility certificate under this section is a statement
furnished by an employee to the employer which--
``(1) certifies that the employee is a member of a targeted
group (as defined in section 51(d)),
``(2) certifies that the employee does not have an
eligibility certificate under this section in effect for the
calendar year with respect to the payment of wages by another
employer, and
``(3) contains such other information as the Secretary may
require.
``(d) Payments to Be Treated as Payments of Withholding and
FICA Taxes.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, payments
made by an employer under subsection (a) to his employees for
any payroll period--
``(A) shall not be treated as the payment of compensation,
and
``(B) shall be treated as made out of--
``(i) amounts required to be deducted and withheld for the
payroll period under section 3401 (relating to wage
withholding), and
``(ii) amounts required to be deducted for the payroll
period under section 3102 (relating to FICA employee taxes),
and
``(iii) amounts of the taxes imposed for the payroll period
under section 3111 (relating to FICA employer taxes),
as if the employer had paid to the Secretary, on the day on
which the wages are paid to the employees, an amount equal to
such payments.
``(2) Advance payments exceed taxes due.--In the case of
any employer, if for any payroll period the sum of the
aggregate amount of payments under subsection (a) plus any
amount paid under section 3507 exceeds the sum of the amounts
referred to in paragraph (1)(B), each such advance payment
shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to
such excess as such advance payment bears to the aggregate
amount of all such advance payments.
``(3) Employer may make full advance payments.--The
Secretary shall prescribe regulations under which an employer
may elect (in lieu of any application of paragraph (2))--
``(A) to pay in full all amounts under subsection (a), and
``(B) to have additional amounts paid by reason of this
paragraph treated as the advance payment of taxes imposed by
this title.
``(4) Failure to make advance payments.--For purposes of
this title (including penalties), failure to make any advance
payment under this section at the time provided therefor
shall be treated as the failure at such time to deduct and
withhold under chapter 24 an amount equal to the amount of
such advance payment.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
25 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
``Sec. 3511. Advanced payment of employment credit for members of
targeted groups.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 206. MODIFICATIONS TO WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.
(a) Expansion to Youth Opportunity Program Participants,
WIA Youth Activity Participants, and Young Offenders.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of
targeted groups) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (H), and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(J) a youth opportunity program participant,
``(K) a qualified WIA youth activity participant, or
``(L) a qualified young offender.''.
(2) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of section 51 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as paragraphs (14), (15), and
(16), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (10) the
following new paragraph:
``(11) Youth opportunity program participant.--The term
`youth opportunity program participant' means an individual
who is certified by an eligible local board or eligible
entity (as such board and entity are described in section 169
of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998)--
``(A) as having completed a program carried out under that
section, and
``(B) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year
after the last date on which such individual completed such a
program.
``(12) Qualified wia youth activity participant.--The term
`qualified WIA youth activity participant' means any
individual who is certified by a designated local agency--
``(A) as an eligible youth (as defined in section 101 of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) who--
``(i) is not less than age 18 and not more than age 21, and
``(ii) has been enrolled in or has received a youth
activity (as so defined) under chapter 4 of subtitle B of
title I of such Act, and
``(B) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year
after the last date on which such individual was so enrolled
or so received such activity.
``(13) Qualified young offender.--The term `qualified young
offender' means any individual who is certified by a
designated local agency--
``(A) as being not less than age 18 and not more than age
21,
``(B) as having been convicted of a misdemeanor, and
``(C) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year
after the last date on which such individual was so convicted
or was released from prison.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Additional Work Opportunity Credit for Retained
Employees.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 51 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amount of credit)
is amended by striking ``equal to 40 percent of the qualified
first-year wages for such year.'' and inserting ``equal to
the sum of--
``(1) 40 percent of the qualified first year wages for such
year, plus
``(2) $500 for each retained employee.''.
(2) Retained employee.--Section 51 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(l) Retained Employee.--For purposes of this section, the
term `retained employee' means an employee who is a member of
a targeted group and--
``(1) who--
[[Page S1067]]
``(A) has worked exactly 1,500 hours for the taxpayer
during any period beginning on the date such employee was
hired and ending with or within the taxable year, and
``(B) was continuously employed by such taxpayer during
such period, or
``(2) who--
``(A) began work with the taxpayer during any 52-week
period ending with or within such taxable year, and
``(B) was continuously employed by such taxpayer during
such 52-week period.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, no employee may be
treated as a retained employee more than once with respect to
any taxpayer.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 207. PUBLICATION OF CHANGES AND ASSISTANCE WITH
PREPARATION.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall--
(1) publicly disseminate information with respect to the
amendments made by this title (including the dissemination of
such information to State and local government one-stop job
centers), and
(2) provide appropriate assistance to taxpayers (through
low-income taxpayer clinics and other sources) for the
purpose of allowing taxpayers to benefit from the amendments
made by this title.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2650. A bill to provide for a 5-year carryback of certain net
operating losses and to suspend the 90 percent alternative minimum tax
limit on certain net operating losses; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation to expand a widely used business tax benefit whereby
business owners balance out net losses over prior years when the
business has a net operating gain. Spreading out this tax liability
helps a business to decrease the adverse impact of a difficult year.
Specifically, this legislation increases the general net operating
loss, NOL, carryback period from 2 years to 5 years in the case of an
NOL for any taxable year ending during 2006, 2007, or 2008.
I am pleased with the quick passage of H.R. 5140, the Recovery
Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008. It
provides tax rebates for individuals, capital investment incentives for
businesses, and important modifications to our housing laws that will
enable more homeowners to refinance their unmanageable mortgages.
However, it is my belief that several important items were left behind
that deserved to be included. The bill I am introducing today is
identical to Section 113 of a modified Senate Finance Committee
Economic Stimulus package, Senate Amendment No. 3983 to H.R. 5140. On
February 6, 2008, the Senate rejected this broader package on a
procedural vote, leaving it just one vote short of the 60 that were
required. I am still hopeful that Congress will revisit some of these
important issues in 2008, either as stand-alone legislation or as part
of another stimulus package if it is determined to be appropriate.
One particular industry that would benefit from passage of this
legislation is the home building industry, which is currently
struggling due to a huge inventory of new homes under construction with
few buyers. Under present law, a business loss can only be deducted
from taxes paid from the previous 2 years. If the loss cannot be
carried back, it must be used in the future. Many home builders are now
reporting financial losses when a few years ago they were generating
jobs, providing local development, and paying taxes. Expanding the NOL
carry-back provision to 5 years would enable builders and other
businesses to receive an immediate rebate on taxes paid in previous
years and provide a much needed infusion of capital to their
businesses. The inability to do so will result in the need to either
increase high-cost borrowing or further liquidate land and homes, which
would only compound the existing inventory problem.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that passage of this
provision as part of the Senate Finance Committee Stimulus package
would have cost $15 billion in 2008 and $5.1 billion over 10 years.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will
help numerous industries that are currently struggling to survive in a
harsh economic downturn.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2651. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to make technical
corrections to the renewable fuel standard; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Technical
Corrections to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard. This bill
is a measured response to the overly aggressive biofuels increase
mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in
December. The Energy bill's mandates allow no room for error in a fuels
industry already constrained by tight supplies, full capacity,
environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions. This
technical corrections bill is not an effort to substantively overhaul
the RFS program but rather is an attempt to smooth its unintended
consequences. Recognizing the delicate political balance surrounding
RFS, these simple fixes are intended to provide flexibility for the
fuels industry in meeting these mandates. As ranking member on the
Environment and Public Works Committee I did not support the 2007
Energy bill. The enactment of these technical corrections would not
change my overall opposition to the current flaws enacted to the RFS
program, but my bill does make this new RFS less onerous.
The first correction to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard
allows a carryover of ethanol credits. This improvement does nothing to
change the currently mandated numbers. Rather, it provides flexibility
to an industry facing many uncertainties. In 2007, the industry used
approximately 2 billion gallons of ethanol over and above the necessary
levels prescribed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT. However,
EPACT language and EPA rulemaking do not allow for 2-year consecutive
``carryover'' of credits. This means that although the industry has
exceeded the 2007 requirements, they would be unable to apply these
credits after 12 months. My bill would accommodate the uncertain levels
of production from year to year. Considering the myriad variables
involved in the ethanol production process including crop yields, land
use, and feed stock prices, it only makes sense to allow more
flexibility.
Another fix extends the small refinery exemption by 2 years. This
language also does nothing to change mandated levels. A small refinery
produces less than 75,000 barrels average daily aggregate and EPACT
exempts these facilities from the renewable fuels numbers until 2011.
These refineries are dealing with drastically smaller economies of
scale in production. In order to protect these refineries from
potential economic hardship and subsequent job loss, this exemption
should be extended from the year 2011 to 2013.
I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and
quickly pass the bill I am introducing today.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham, and
Mr. Alexander):
S. 2652. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make a grant
to the National World War II Museum Foundation for facilities and
programs of America's National World War II Museum; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be
known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The
ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a
testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented
mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on
two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes
to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the
many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops
abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the
end of this Great War.
I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War
II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made.
Today, along
[[Page S1068]]
with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce America's
National World War II Museum Expansion Act.
On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of
Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA,
opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that
exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American
experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home.
The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the
Merchant Marine.
The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen
Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was
the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D.
Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower
and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe,
credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in
New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed
and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins
Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of
World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men
from the ship to the shore.
The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates
diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs,
letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war
and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving,
maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and
history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress
designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's
National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board
has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its
size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of
the war, including the war on the home front.
This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the
expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans.
Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for
the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The
U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main
theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits,
the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring
all of the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as
President, or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of
Representatives between the years of 1941 and 1945.
A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240
million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the
State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the
expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match
dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by
Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million,
and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately.
A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman
Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members
of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing,
I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg,
Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping
to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give
special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator
Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen.
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. 2652
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 ``America's National World War
II Museum Expansion Act''.
SEC. 2. GRANT TO NATIONAL WORLD WAR II MUSEUM FOUNDATION FOR
AMERICA'S NATIONAL WORLD WAR II MUSEUM.
(a) Grant.--The Secretary of Defense may make a grant in
the amount of $50,000,000 to the National World War II Museum
Foundation for use in accordance with subsection (b) for the
museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, designated as America's
National World War II Museum by section 8134 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law
108-87; 117 Stat. 1103) (referred to in this section as the
``Museum'').
(b) Use of Funds.--The grant under subsection (a) shall be
used for the following:
(1) The planning, design, and construction of a new
facility for the Museum, to be known as the United States
Freedom Pavilion, and its exhibitions, and the planning,
design, and construction of a new canopy over the courtyard
of the Museum, to be known as the Canopy of Peace.
(2) The public display of artifacts, photographs, letters,
documents, and personal histories dating from 1939 to 1945,
including exhibits portraying American sacrifices both on the
battlefield and on the home front and the industrial
mobilization of the American home front.
(3) Educational outreach programs for teachers and
students.
(4) Traveling exhibitions on the history and lessons of
World War II for United States military facilities.
(5) Educational programs to foster the expansion of
European and Pacific exhibits at the Museum to be included in
the Center for the Study of the American Spirit.
(6) Projects that enable the Museum to function as a
liaison between museums, scholars, and members of the general
public in the United States and around the world.
(7) A readily accessible repository of information and
materials reflecting the historical, social, and cultural
effects of World War II.
(8) The preservation, interpretation, and public exhibition
of memorabilia, models, artifacts of significance (and
replicas), and oral histories from the combat experience of
members of the United States Armed Forces.
(9) Other appropriate activities relating to the management
and operation of the United States Freedom Pavilion,
including the sale of concessions, appropriate mementos, and
other materials, the proceeds of which would help support the
overall operation of the Museum and the United States Freedom
Pavilion.
(c) Report.--Not later than 60 months after receiving a
grant under this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report documenting how the Museum used the grants
funds and evaluating the success of the projects and
activities funded by the grant.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this Act.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2653. A bill to further United States security by restoring and
enhancing the competitiveness of the United States for international
students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors and by
facilitating business travel to the United States; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, I am introducing
legislation to restore and enhance our Nation's competitiveness for
international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors,
and better facilitate legitimate business travel to the U.S.
In the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, it was necessary to
take the steps we did to improve and enhance our Nation's security. But
in the more than 6 years since 9/11, these well-intentioned changes
have had unintended consequences, stifling legitimate academic and
scientific exchange and international business travel, and tarnishing
our Nation's image around the world.
Three years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a similar bill
designed to reverse the decline in the number of foreign students
studying at American colleges and universities. At that time,
international applications to U.S. graduate schools and to English as a
Second Language, ESL, programs were plummeting, and visa delays were
numbering in the thousands. Visa delays were also negatively impacting
the scientific and business communities, resulting in billions of
dollars of losses for the U.S. economy, as scientific research,
conferences, and business meetings had to be canceled and shifted to
overseas locations.
Over the past 3 years, there have been improvements with visa
issuance, and it is the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs,
particularly Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, who deserves much of the
credit. I am pleased with their advancements to enhance consular staff;
adopt newer,
[[Page S1069]]
more efficient technology; offer international students, scholars, and
exchange visitors preferential consideration when scheduling in-person
interview appointments; and extend security clearance validity. The
Department also has established a business visa center to field
inquiries from U.S. businesses and their worldwide counterparts,
although the center cannot expedite in-person interview appointments or
the processing of visa applications.
This is not to say that visa delays have disappeared entirely. Delays
do continue to occur, albeit not at the huge volume they once were.
Because of this, there is a lot of lingering uncertainty about the
process which generates a great deal of concern for international
students, scholars, exchange visitors, and business travelers, and
reinforces a perception that America is not a welcoming place for
international visitors.
Indeed, serious concerns remain regarding the U.S. position in the
competition for international talent, particularly among higher
education, the scientific community, and the private sector. Our
competitiveness problem is not just a visa problem--we cannot solve it
simply by fixing the visa problems that were created after 9/11.
The U.S. now faces strong competition for international students,
scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors. The United Kingdom,
Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union all have coordinated,
government-led strategic plans in place for attracting international
students and scholars to their colleges and universities. Even our
neighbor to the north, Canada, plans to announce a strategic plan this
year. Meanwhile, traditional sending countries such as China and India
are expanding their own higher education offerings, both to retain more
of their own students and to attract international students. In the
face of this competition, the U.S. still struggles along with piecemeal
efforts, with each positive action seemingly cancelled out by a
negative action and persistent negative perceptions. The results are
worrisome.
While international student enrollment in the U.S. declined in both
the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years, and remained stagnant in
2005-2006, over the same period, enrollment in the United Kingdom
jumped more than 80,000, in Australia and France more than 50,000, and
in Germany and Japan more than 20,000. In 2006, then-U.K. Prime
Minister Tony Blair announced a goal of attracting an additional
100,000 international students to Great Britain in the next 5 years.
Although we have started to see the enrollment numbers tick upwards
slightly just this past year--in Minnesota, 9,048 international
students were studying at colleges and universities last academic year,
contributing $186.4 million to the state's economy--it is still below
the peak level of 9,143 achieved in 2003-2004, so there is still ground
to make up for what was lost over the past 3 years to ensure we regain
our place as the most desired destination for study and for research.
Even if we return to pre-9/11 numbers, we may find we have lost market
share to competing nations.
Why should this matter to the U.S.? Recent public opinion polls taken
around the world show that the U.S. has fallen out of favor. But these
same polls also show that foreigners who have personally visited the
U.S. have a significantly more favorable opinion than those who have
never visited.
International students and scholars benefit greatly from their
experiences in the U.S., not only from their studies and research, but
also from living in daily American life. They carry these experiences
home, often becoming ambassadors of goodwill and understanding. Many go
on to achieve leadership positions in their home countries in
government, business, or education. These exchanges also benefit
American students, researchers and business colleagues, who similarly
have the opportunity to learn about another culture in this globalized
world.
Two expert commissions recently issued recommendations citing
international educational exchange as a critical form of public
diplomacy outreach. Last November, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies' Commission on Smart Power cited international
educational exchange as a key element for improving America's declining
standing and influence in the world. Just last month, the Secure
Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee
tasked by the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide
recommendations on the Departments' missions to protect not only
America's security but also our economic livelihood, ideals, image, and
strategic relationships with the world, cited the need for a proactive
national strategy to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal
to attract international students and scholars to the U.S.
International students and scholars are not only important for public
diplomacy, they also are essential for our Nation's global
competitiveness. They make significant contributions to our economic
growth and innovation. According to recent National Science Board data,
nearly half of all graduate enrollments at U.S. colleges and
universities in the science and engineering fields are international
students. And these students often go on to positively impact future
research and technology output in this country. I strongly support
efforts to build up America's own supply of science and technology
talent, but we also must continue to actively attract international
talent to our shores if we are to retain our innovative edge.
It is a reality of our time that, at the high-skill level, the
temporary immigration system has become a conveyor belt of talent into
the permanent immigration system. Most foreign students do want to go
home after graduation, but some want to stay and use the knowledge they
have acquired at our universities. For example, Ms. Indra Nooyi, the
current CEO of PepsiCo, the world's fourth largest food and beverage
company, is herself a former international student who received her
master's degree from Yale University's School of Management.
So it is for all these important reasons that Senator Bingaman and I
once again introduce legislation on this important issue: The American
Competitiveness Through International Openness Now, ACTION, Act of
2008.
This year's bill once again calls for the establishment of a
strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in
recruiting international students, scholars and exchange visitors. The
U.S. can no longer sit back and rest on its laurels when engaging in
this global competition, especially when all of our competitors clearly
have stepped up their game.
Our biggest problem is our inability to marshal the efforts of all
the relevant agencies into one coherent effort. Too often, these
agencies work in an uncoordinated manner, or worse, at cross purposes.
The PR blunder cases, where one arm of our government sets up exchange
programs to attract people and another arm of the government detains
them at the border, is only the tip of the iceberg. Our legislation
would create a White House-chaired International Education Coordinating
Council to guide the work of the myriad agencies that affect our
competitiveness for international students and exchange visitors.
One of the most important provisions in the legislation would remove
the nonimmigrant intent requirement for international students, the so-
called 214(b) rule. This outdated requirement that all applicants for
student visas must intend to return home after their studies makes no
sense, especially when talent-starved high-tech industries actively
court international students upon graduation. As I stated earlier, our
ability to attract international talent is essential to sustaining our
competitive edge in the world. Retaining such a requirement is simply
out of step in this day and age, especially when most of our
competitors are going out of their way to enact policies to make it
easier for international students to stay after graduation.
The bill calls for further improvement in the timeliness and
efficiency of the visa issuance process for those in the sciences. It
directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to reduce the length
of time to issue visas to scientists to a maximum of 30 days, and to
provide a special review process for those cases that are delayed more
than 45 days. It also directs the Secretary of State to review and
update the Technology Alert List on a regular basis,
[[Page S1070]]
and to consult with academia and the private sector as part of this
review, to ensure the list reflects the current state of technology.
It also calls for expediting visa reviews for so-called ``Trusted
Travelers'': easily identifiable, low-risk frequent travelers who have
a history of past visa approvals, haven't violated their immigration
status, and have provided their biometric data, plus any additional
information required, to the consulate. This would both ease travel for
these individuals and permit consular resources to be focused on more
important cases. There is also a provision to also allow expedited visa
reviews for international students, scholars and exchange visitors who
leave the United States temporarily to visit their families or attend
conferences and require a new visa to return to the same program.
Today, these people can be stranded abroad for months without being
able to return to their programs.
The legislation calls for the reinstatement of domestic or stateside
visa renewals for those here on employment-based non-immigrant visas.
This practice was discontinued in 2004, because U.S. consulates abroad
were better equipped to collect the required biometric data from the
renewal applicant. Given today's available technology, we should seek
to reinstate this practice. This would help to alleviate the volume of
renewal applicants at our overseas consulates, as well as help renewal
applicants who often opt to forgo travel overseas due to the
uncertainty of timely and efficient processing of their renewal
applications.
Finally, there has been much public debate about driver's licenses
and Real ID. In our well-intentioned efforts to ensure that only
persons in the U.S. legally are able to acquire driver's licenses, we
have unintentionally hamstrung the ability of legal nonimmigrants to
have licenses. Real ID's unrealistic documentation and renewal
requirements for international students and scholars send yet another
negative signal about America's openness to them, and frankly ignore
technical advances which could provide both better assurances about a
person's legal status and licenses of a longer validity. Our bill will
correct this problem in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, the
integrity of driver's licenses.
For all of these reasons, our legislation is endorsed by NAFSA:
Association of International Educators, the world's largest
professional association advocating for international education and
exchange programs, by the National Foreign Trade Council, the Nation's
premier business organization dedicated to advancing global commerce,
and by USA Engage, a leading broad-based coalition of trade
associations promoting global economic engagement.
The American way of life owes its success and vitality to its
historic ability to harness the best in knowledge and ideas, not only
those that are homegrown, but also those that come from outside our
borders. The longer we wait to take action, the more we risk missing
out on future U.S. academic, business, and research success.
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. 2653
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 ``American Competitiveness
Through International Openness Now Act of 2008'' or as the
``ACTION Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Although the United States is engaged in a global
competition for international students and scholars, the
United States lacks a comprehensive strategy for conducting
and succeeding in this competition.
(2) In January 2008, the Secure Borders and Open Doors
Advisory Committee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council
issued a report that specifically cites international
education as a key component of public diplomacy, stating:
``America is losing competitiveness for international
students for one primary reason . . . because our competitors
have--and America lacks--a proactive national strategy that
enables us to mobilize all the tools and assets at our
disposal, and that enables the federal bureaucracy to work
together in a coherent fashion, to attract international
students.''
(3) Attracting the world's most talented students and
scholars to campuses and research institutes in the United
States will contribute significantly to the leadership,
competitiveness, and security of this Nation.
(4) The international student market has been transformed
in the 21st century. Traditional competitor countries have
adopted and implemented strategies for capturing a greater
share of the market. New competitors, primarily the European
Higher Education Area, have entered the market. Traditional
sending countries, such as China and India, are expanding
their indigenous higher education capacity, both to retain
their own students and to attract international students. All
of these changes are giving international students many more
options for pursuing higher education outside their home
countries.
(5) The number of international students enrolled in United
States higher education institutions declined in the academic
years 2003-04 and 2004-05, and remained constant in academic
year 2005-06. In academic year 2006-07, international student
enrollments increased 3 percent, yet remained below the peak
level, achieved in the 2002-03 academic year.
(6) From 2003 to 2006, international student enrollments
increased--
(A) by more than 80,000 in the United Kingdom;
(B) by more than 50,000 in Australia and France; and
(C) by more than 20,000 in Germany and Japan.
(7) Anecdotal evidence indicates that international
students, scholars, and scientists continue to find the
process of gaining entry to the United States to be demeaning
and unnecessarily cumbersome.
(8) While intensive English programs in the United States
are a gateway to degree programs, international student
enrollments in such programs have declined by almost 50
percent since 2000, and many schools offering such programs
have closed. This is due primarily to the difficulty of
obtaining a United States visa for the purpose of studying
English.
(9) At a time when talent is both scarce and mobile and
attracting talent is essential to the leadership,
competitiveness, and security of the United States, it is as
important for our Nation's visa system to be a gateway for
international talent as it is for it to be a barrier to
international criminals. Although the Department of State has
made significant progress in improving the United States visa
system, the system still does not effectively serve this dual
purpose.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of
the United States--
(1) to make international educational exchange a priority
in order to promote United States leadership,
competitiveness, and security;
(2) to restore United States competitiveness for
international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange
visitors;
(3) to ensure that all agencies of the United States
Government work together to create a welcoming environment
for legitimate international students, scholars, scientists,
and exchange visitors, without sacrificing safety;
(4) to pursue a visa policy that keeps the United States
safe, prosperous, and free, by--
(A) addressing legitimate security concerns; and
(B) keeping the United States a welcoming Nation; and
(5) to ensure that United States consulates have adequate
resources to perform their required duties.
SEC. 4. ENHANCING UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS FOR
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS,
AND EXCHANGE VISITORS.
(a) Strategic Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the
United States for international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors.
(2) Content.--The strategic plan submitted under this
subsection shall include--
(A) a clear directive to the Department of State, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education,
the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and
other Federal departments that impact--
(i) the propensity of international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors to visit the United States;
(ii) the ability of such individuals to gain entry into the
United States; and
(iii) the ability of such individuals to obtain a driver's
license, Social Security card, and other documents essential
to daily life in the United States;
(B) a marketing plan, including continued improvements in
the use of the Internet and other media resources, to promote
and facilitate study in the United States by international
students;
(C) a clear division of labor among the departments
referred to in subparagraph (A);
(D) a plan to enhance the role of the educational advising
centers of the Department of State that are located in
foreign countries to promote study in the United States and
to prescreen visa applicants;
[[Page S1071]]
(E) a clarification of the lines of authority and
responsibility for international students in the Department
of Commerce;
(F) a clear role for the Department of Education in
increasing the competitiveness of the United States for
international students; and
(G) a clear delineation of the lines of authority and
streamlined procedures within the Department of Homeland
Security related to international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors.
(b) International Education Coordination Council.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Executive
Office of the President a council to be known as the
International Education Coordination Council (referred to in
this subsection as the ``Council'').
(2) Purpose.--The Council shall coordinate the activities
of the Federal Government in order to further the purposes of
this Act.
(3) Chair.--The President shall designate an official of
the Executive Office of the President to preside over the
Council.
(4) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of the
following positions, or their designees:
(A) The Secretary of State.
(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(C) The Secretary of Education.
(D) The Secretary of Commerce.
(E) The Secretary of Energy.
(F) The Secretary of Labor.
(G) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(H) The Commissioner of Social Security.
(I) The head of any other agency designated by the
President.
(c) Elimination of Nonimmigrant Intent Criterion for
Students.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i))
is amended--
(A) by striking ``having a residence in a foreign country
which he has no intention of abandoning,'' and inserting
``having the intention, capability, and sufficient financial
resources to complete a course of study in the United
States,''; and
(B) by striking ``and solely''.
(2) Presumption of status.--Section 214(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by striking
``subparagraph (L) or'' and inserting ``subparagraph (F),
(L), or''.
(d) Countering Visa Fraud.--The Secretary of State shall--
(1) require United States consular offices, with particular
emphasis on consular offices in countries that send large
numbers of international students and exchange visitors to
the United States, to submit to the Secretary plans for
countering visa fraud that respond to the particular fraud-
related problems in the countries where such offices are
located; and
(2) not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act,
report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives on the measures taken to counter visa fraud
under the plans submitted under paragraph (1).
(e) Improving the Security Clearance Process for
Scientists.--
(1) Duration of security clearances.--The Secretary shall
extend the duration of security clearances for scientists
admitted under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)) until sooner of--
(A) the expiration of the program for which the scientist
was admitted; or
(B) the date that is 5 years after the beginning of such
extension.
(2) Portability of security clearances.--
(A) Validity across nonimmigrant classifications.--Except
as provided under subparagraph (B), a security clearance
issued with respect to an individual classified within a
nonimmigrant classification shall remain valid with respect
to a change of the individual to another nonimmigrant
classification if the security clearance approved in
connection with the first classification is in substantially
the same field as the field involved in the subsequent
classification.
(B) National interest waiver.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply with respect to an applicant for a security clearance
if the Secretary determines that the application of such
subparagraph with respect to such applicant is not in the
national security interests of the United States.
(3) Visa processing time.--The Secretary shall issue
appropriate guidance to--
(A) reduce the length of time required to issue visas to
scientists to a maximum of 30 days; and
(B) provide for a special review process to resolve
instances in which the length of time required to issue visas
to scientists exceeds 45 days.
(4) Review of technology alert list.--
(A) Interagency process.--The Secretary shall establish an
interagency group to review the technology alert list not
less frequently than once every 2 years.
(B) Chair.--The interagency review group established
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be chaired by an
appropriate official of the Department of State.
(C) Consultation.--As part of its assessment of the current
state of technology, the interagency review group shall
consult with academic experts and with companies that
manufacture and distribute the items on the technology alert
list.
(D) Implementation.--The Secretary shall--
(i) promptly revise the technology alert list in accordance
with the recommendations of the group; and
(ii) promptly notify consular officials of the Department
of State of the revisions.
(5) Annual report.--
(A) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit an annual
report on the implementation of this subsection to--
(i) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of
the Senate;
(ii) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(iii) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
(iv) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
(v) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives; and
(vi) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (A)
shall include such information as the Secretary determines
appropriate, including--
(i) progress made to reduce the length of time required to
process visas to scientists, including the average processing
time to complete security clearances for visa applicants in
each nonimmigrant visa classification under section
101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(ii) any revisions made to the technology alert list under
paragraph (4);
(iii) the number of individuals in each nonimmigrant visa
classification who have--
(I) received a security clearance in the preceding year;
(II) been approved for a visa after receiving such
clearance; or
(III) been denied such clearance; and
(iv) the distribution of such individuals by country of
nationality.
(6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Scientists.--The term ``scientists'' means individuals
subject to clearance under section 212(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(II)).
(B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.
(C) Technology alert list.--The term ``technology alert
list'' means the list of goods, technology, and sensitive
information that is maintained by the Department of State.
(f) Short-Term Study on Tourist Visa.--Section
101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B)) is amended by inserting ``for a period
longer than 90 days'' after ``study''.
(g) Drivers' Licenses for International Students and
Exchange Visitors.--Section 202(c)(2)(C) of the Real ID Act
of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(v) Provisions for nonimmigrants monitored under the
student and exchange visitor information system.--With
respect to a nonimmigrant subject to the monitoring system
required under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372)--
``(I) notwithstanding clause (ii), a temporary driver's
license or temporary identification card issued to such
nonimmigrant pursuant to this subparagraph shall be valid for
the shorter of--
``(aa) the period of time of the nonimmigrant's authorized
stay in the United States; or
``(bb) the standard issuance period for drivers' licenses
provided by the State; and
``(II) valid status under that monitoring system shall be
deemed to be valid documentary evidence that the nonimmigrant
maintains status for purposes of clause (iv).''.
(h) Change of Status for Certain F-visa Holders Seeking
Adjustment of Status.--An individual who has been in valid
status under section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) shall be considered
to have remained in such status until the beginning of a
fiscal year if--
(1) a petition under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such
Act has been filed on behalf of such individual and has been
approved for such fiscal year;
(2) the cap with respect to such petitions provided in
paragraph (1)(A) or (5)(C) of section 214(g) of such Act was
reached before such fiscal year; and
(3) such individual's valid status under section
101(a)(15)(F) of such Act would otherwise terminate not more
than 6 months before such fiscal year.
(i) Social Security Enumeration at Ports of Entry.--
(1) Finding.--Congress finds that section
205(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)) requires the Commissioner of Social
Security to assign Social Security numbers, to the maximum
extent practicable, to aliens at the time of their lawful
admission to the United States--
(A) for permanent residence; or
(B) under any other status which permits such aliens to
engage in employment in the United States.
(2) Memorandum of understanding.--Pursuant to such section,
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security, the Secretary
of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reach
agreement on a memorandum of understanding to expand the
enumeration-at-entry program to include all eligible
individuals seeking admission to the United States under
section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)).
(3) Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act,
[[Page S1072]]
the expanded enumeration-at-entry program described in
paragraph (2) shall become effective at all United States
ports of entry.
SEC. 5. FACILITATING BUSINESS AND ACADEMIC TRAVEL.
(a) Expedited Visa Reviews for Trusted Travelers.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
establish a trusted traveler program for international
students, researchers, scholars, and individuals engaged in
business, which shall operate in accordance with such
guidance and procedures as the Secretary may determine.
(2) Trusted traveler described.--The trusted traveler
program shall provide for expedited visa review for--
(A) frequent low-risk visitors to the United States, who--
(i) have a history of visa approvals;
(ii) have not violated their immigration status;
(iii) have provided biometric data; and
(iv) have agreed to provide the consulate with such
information as the Secretary may require; and
(B) aliens admitted under subparagraph (F) or (J) of
section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), who--
(i) are pursuing a program in the United States;
(ii) have not violated their immigration status;
(iii) have left the United States temporarily; and
(iv) require a new visa to return to the same program.
(3) Authority to waive personal appearance.--
Notwithstanding section 222(h) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202(h)), the Secretary may waive
the requirement for an in-person interview by a consular
officer with respect to trusted travelers described in
paragraph (2).
(b) Enhancing Consular Resources and Performance.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary of State shall--
(A) issue instructions providing for--
(i) enhanced staffing of United States consulates with high
demand for visas and long visa-processing backlogs; and
(ii) enhanced training, in partnership with institutions of
higher education, leaders in educational exchange, and the
business community, for consular officers with respect to
processing visas for international students and scholars and
individuals traveling for business;
(B) issue strong operational guidance to all United States
consular posts to eliminate inconsistencies in visa
processing; and
(C) through regular reviews, hold such posts accountable
for removing such inconsistencies.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
on the implementation of this subsection.
(c) Restoration of Revalidation Procedures for Employment-
Based Visas.--
(1) In general.--Section 222 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) The Secretary of State shall issue regulations to
permit an alien granted a nonimmigrant visa under
subparagraph (E), (H), (I), (L), (O), or (P) of section
101(a)(15) to apply for a renewal of such visa within the
United States if--
``(1) such visa is valid or did not expire more than 12
months before the date of such application;
``(2) the alien is seeking a nonimmigrant visa under the
same subparagraph under which the alien had previously
received a visa; and
``(3) the alien has complied with the immigration laws of
the United States.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 222(h) of such Act is
amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (1), by
striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Except as
provided under subsection (i), and notwithstanding''.
(d) Comprehensive Human Capital Workforce Plan.--The
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall jointly--
(1) develop a plan for the appropriate selection, training,
and supervision of Federal Government officials whose contact
with foreign citizens impacts the international image of the
United States, including consular and customs and border
protection officials; and
(2) submit an annual report on the implementation of the
plan described in paragraph (1) to--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives; and
(D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives.
____________________