[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S389-S398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Udall, of New Mexico, Mr. Udall, of Colorado, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 231. A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge as wilderness; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this morning we introduced legislation 
to protect the coastal plains region of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge from the threat of oil and gas exploration. S. 231 designates 
1.5 million acres of the Refuge as Wilderness to be included in the 
National Wilderness Preservation System. Bestowing Wilderness 
designation on this precious piece of national heritage will reaffirm 
the original intent of the Refuge: to provide habitat for Alaska's 
wildlife.
  As designated Wilderness, that land will become subject to specific 
management restrictions. Human activities will be restricted to non-
motorized recreation, scientific research, and other non-invasive 
activities. Logging, mining, road building, mechanized vehicles, and 
other forms of development are generally prohibited in designated 
Wilderness areas. However, since these particular lands are in Alaska, 
some public motorized uses will be permitted for subsistence and 
traditional use. For example, subsistence hunting as well as limited 
backpacking and hiking will be allowed.
  The Arctic Refuge is home to 250 species of wildlife. Drilling there 
would severely harm its abundant populations of polar bears, caribou, 
musk oxen, and snow geese, and the amount of commercially recoverable 
oil in the Refuge would satisfy only a very small percentage of our 
nation's need at any given time.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a pristine natural treasure 
that must be preserved for future generations. We do not have to choose 
between conservation and exploration when it comes to our energy 
future; we can do both simultaneously while moving toward a sustainable 
and diverse national energy policy.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 234. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as 
the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation to designate the United States Post Office at 2105 East 
Cook Street in Springfield, IL, as the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. 
Post Office Building,'' honoring the first African-American to achieve 
the rank of Colonel in the Illinois Reserves.
  Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr., was born on December 28, 1918, in 
Springfield, IL. In 1942, he enlisted in World War II and served in 
five battle campaigns in Europe, including in General Patton's advance 
in France, for which he was awarded the Silver Star Medal.
  In addition to his 14 years of active duty service, he served for 17 
years in the Illinois Reserves. He served as group commander in 
Springfield from 1967-1973 and was promoted to Colonel in 1965, making 
him the first African-American to achieve that rank in the Illinois 
Reserves at that time. Upon his retirement in 1973, he was awarded the 
Legion of Merit from the Army.
  In his civilian life, Col. Wilson worked for the United States Postal 
Service for 57 years. From time to time, he would stop by my office in 
Springfield to share news about our local post office and make sure our 
mail was being delivered on time. Whenever he could, he would stop by 
to see me in Washington.
  Anyone who knew Col. Wilson also knew of his love for the Reserves. 
He was a life member of the U.S. Reserve Officers Association, 
President of the ROA Springfield Chapter from 1960-61 and President of 
the ROA Illinois Department from 1971-72.
  He was also a commercial photographer, member of the Military 
Officers of America, and lifelong member of Holy Trinity Lutheran 
Church.
  He died on August 30, 2008, in the same home of his birth. He is 
survived by his wife of 62 years, Lydie, and their two daughters, 
Shirley Wilson and Chantal Sneed.
  Col. Wilson was a distinguished man of service. My hometown of 
Springfield, IL and our Nation is a better place because of his 
lifelong commitment to his country.
  I am grateful to Springfield Mayor Timothy Davlin, former Illinois 
National Guard Adjutant General Lou Myers, and the local branch of the 
American Postal Workers Union for their support of this legislation. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in enacting this tribute to Col. 
Wilson.
  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. 234

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

     SECTION 1. COLONEL JOHN H. WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, 
     Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ``Colonel John 
     H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office 
     Building''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
  S. 235. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair 
and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an 
open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the 
Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights today with my friend and colleague, 
Senator Charles Schumer. We are introducing this bill today as a way to 
add some commonsense rules to the laws governing the issuance of credit 
cards.
  Commonsense rules are important at a time when many Americans are 
hurting and taking on more debt, even as credit card companies are 
making record profits. I hear often from hard-working, honest 
Coloradans who are asking only to be treated fairly by the credit card 
industry, whose deceptive practices have plagued consumers for years.
  We need to act to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans 
who need and use credit cards every day. I have heard from constituents 
across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this 
issue.

[[Page S390]]

  They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and 
their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, 
for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is 
something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. 
For them, it is a necessity.
  Of course, another word for credit is debt, and credit card debt has 
increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last 
decade, total credit card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this 
clearly has an effect on consumers.
  Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families 
said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of 
their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into 
debt than about a terrorist attack.
  Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness 
and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main 
arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy 
laws.
  But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole 
story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just 
focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote 
responsibility by those who provide the credit, and one place to start 
is with credit card companies.
  That is the reason I have been working to make some commonsense 
changes in the rules for credit card companies.
  I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced 
it again the following year. I am proud it won the support of an array 
of consumer groups as well as cosponsors from congressional districts 
across the country.
  Last year, the House passed H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill 
of Rights, a bill I introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney, 
that includes many provisions based on my legislation.
  The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is almost 
identical to the House-passed bill. It includes protection against 
arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay 
on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and 
will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it will 
prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that 
allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit 
card account if there has been any change for the worse in the 
cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the 
credit card account.
  The passage of this legislation is made more urgent by our Nation's 
worsening financial crisis. I will work with Members of both parties to 
make these commonsense reforms and even the playing field for credit 
card consumers in Colorado and throughout the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Thune, Ms. Klobuchar, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 238. A bill to provide $50 billion in new transportation 
infrastructure funding through bonding to empower States and local 
governments to complete significant infrastructure projects across all 
modes of transportation, including roads, bridges, rail and transit 
systems, ports, and inland waterways, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, despite the record transportation funding 
that Congress provided in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization 
bill--SAFETEA-LU--our Nation's infrastructure is being stressed to the 
breaking point. Our ports and rail lines are at or near capacity. Our 
highways are clogged.
  Congress is working with President-Elect Obama on an economic 
stimulus package that will probably include funding for ``shovel-
ready'' transportation projects. But even that won't come close to 
rehabilitating our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 
5 years $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of 
government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to 
date. To put that into perspective, our Nation's infrastructure needs 
roughly i times as much funding as was included in SAFETEA-LU.
  The question is ``Where do we find the transportation funding that 
our country needs to meet our transportation and our economic needs?''
  Senator Thune's and my answer is to invest in America.
  Everyone agrees that our country's infrastructure needs are 
tremendous. Everyone agrees that our country needs to invest more in 
transportation. What Congress hasn't been able to agree on is where to 
find the money. Gas taxes just don't generate enough revenues to even 
begin to satisfy highway and transit needs.
  In this budget climate, pots of extra Federal money are not just 
sitting around waiting to be used, and States surely don't have any 
extra money either. Most have budget deficits. All the conventional 
funding sources are coming up short, so Senator Thune and I think it's 
time to think outside the box--and outside the trust funds. The Federal 
Government is about the only entity in the country that does not borrow 
money for capital projects, but in this climate it should and it must.

  Senator Thune and I have come up with a creative approach to provide 
$50 billion of additional new funding for transportation projects our 
country desperately needs by issuing Build America Bonds. Our country's 
needs are so great that we think funding should be made available that 
is in addition to SAFETEA-LU.
  Our legislation is not a substitute for fixing the transportation 
trust fund. We still must address that problem, and later this year we 
must start on a new Transportation bill. Our legislation is meant to 
provide extra money on top of regular transportation funding.
  This money could not be earmarked by Congress. This will not fund any 
Senator's pet project. This money will be controlled by the States, and 
used for the projects they think are most critical.
  An annual amount of approximately $500 million from trade fees will 
be placed in an Infrastructure Finance Account and invested for the 
life of the bonds, which will generate more than enough to repay the 
entire $50 billion principal amount.
  That means the only cost to the Government is the ``interest 
portion'' on the bonds, which is in the form of tax credits. With this 
funding mechanism, as little as $2 billion a year could generate the 
$50 billion in funding for transportation infrastructure. I call that a 
very smart investment in our country's infrastructure.
  This investment is badly needed.
  Citizens stuck in traffic choking on exhaust need relief. Truckers 
who need to detour miles out of their way to avoid weight-limited 
bridges need relief. As our economy struggles with millions of workers 
losing their jobs, stagnating wages, the loss of even basic health 
benefits for many, and a mortgage market that is spiraling downward, 
the American economy desperately needs a shot in the arm.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that each $1 billion 
of funding for transportation directly produces nearly 50,000 jobs. So 
under the Wyden/Thune proposal the $50 billion of new transportation 
funding will provide critical economic stimulus that will create up to 
2.5 million family wage jobs.
  This is an economic stimulus idea that will generate more funding for 
the economy now. It will create jobs. It's a chance for the Federal 
Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that 
veterans in each of the 48 contiguous States are able to receive 
services in at least one full-service hospital of the Veterans Health 
Administration in the State or receive comparable services provided by 
contract in the State; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to announce that I am introducing 
the Veterans Health Equity Act of 2009. This legislation requires the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that every State has either a 
full-service veterans hospital or, in the alternative, that veterans in 
every State have access to instate hospital care and medical services 
comparable to the services provided in full-service hospitals.

[[Page S391]]

  New Hampshire is currently the only State that does not have a full-
service veterans hospital or a military hospital that provides 
comparable care to veterans. This imposes a great burden on too many 
New Hampshire veterans who are forced to travel out of State for 
routine medical services. New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and 
this number is projected to grow over the next 10 years. It is 
unconscionable that New Hampshire veterans must board buses in order to 
be transported to Massachusetts to get necessary medical care. New 
Hampshire's entire congressional delegation, Senate and House, 
Republican and Democratic, is united in our commitment to end this 
unfair treatment of veterans. I am pleased the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire, Judd Gregg, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation with 
me.
  Our bill is companion legislation to that introduced last week in the 
House by Representative Carol Shea-Porter and cosponsored by 
Representative Paul Hodes. I wish to take this opportunity to salute 
Representative Shea-Porter for the leadership she has shown on this 
issue.
  Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans can get the care 
they need and deserve instate. Our legislation provides the Veterans' 
Administration with flexibility to achieve this end. If it is not 
feasible for the VA to construct a new full-service hospital in New 
Hampshire or to restore full services at the VA hospital in Manchester, 
this legislation simply requires the Veterans' Administration to 
contract for comparable instate care.
  My father served in Europe during World War II, my husband is a 
Vietnam era vet from the Army, and my son-in-law Ryan recently served 
in the Air Force. I am proud of my family's service and the service of 
all the veterans of New Hampshire and across this country. Every 
freedom and right we enjoy today was paid for with the sacrifices of 
the men and women who have served in our Nation's Armed Forces.
  Our veterans deserve first-rate medical care, regardless of where 
they live. There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and 
veterans in Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive care at military 
hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful our colleagues 
will recognize this inequity and support our efforts to provide New 
Hampshire veterans with the same access to health care that veterans in 
every other State receive.
  I look forward to working with New Hampshire's congressional 
delegation, with my Senate colleagues and with the new Obama 
administration to end this injustice.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 239

       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 ``Veterans Health Equity Act 
     of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FULL-SERVICE HOSPITAL OF THE VETERANS 
                   HEALTH ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN STATES OR 
                   PROVISION OF COMPARABLE SERVICES THROUGH 
                   CONTRACT WITH OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IN 
                   THE STATE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1716 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1716A. Access to full-service hospitals in certain 
       States or comparable services through contract

       ``(a) Requirement.--With respect to each of the 48 
     contiguous States, the Secretary shall ensure that veterans 
     in the State eligible for hospital care and medical services 
     under section 1710 of this title have access--
       ``(1) to at least one full-service hospital of the Veterans 
     Health Administration in the State; or
       ``(2) to hospital care and medical services comparable to 
     the services provided in full-service hospitals through 
     contract with other health care providers in the State.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) 
     shall be construed to restrict the ability of the Secretary 
     to provide enhanced care to an eligible veteran who resides 
     in one State in a hospital of the Veterans Health 
     Administration in another State.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1716 the following new item:

``1716A. Access to full-service hospitals in certain States or 
              comparable services through contract.''.

       (c) Report on Implementation.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a report describing 
     the extent to which the Secretary has complied with the 
     requirement imposed by section 1716A of title 38, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), including the effect 
     of such requirement on improving the quality and standards of 
     care provided to veterans.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the Veteran's Health 
Equity Act, a bill that has been introduced by my friend from the other 
side of the aisle, Senator Jeanne Shaheen. I am pleased to start the 
111th Congress in a bipartisan fashion and to support legislation that 
addresses an issue that is extremely important to our Nation's heroic 
military veterans, especially in my home State of New Hampshire.
  This important piece of legislation, which I hope will have the 
Senate's full support, would require the Department of Veterans Affairs 
to guarantee that veterans in every State have access to instate 
hospital care. More specifically, the Veteran's Health Equity Act would 
require the VA to either provide a full-service VA hospital in every 
State or contract with one or a number of full-service hospitals to 
provide veterans with a comparable level of care.
  At this time, New Hampshire, like Alaska and Hawaii, is without a 
full-service VA hospital and veterans are being forced to travel to 
Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont in order to receive necessary medical 
treatment. Oftentimes, especially during the winter months, interstate 
travel can be extremely dangerous in New England, and our veterans 
should not be forced to travel long distances in order to receive the 
medical care they have earned and deserve.
  I will continue to press the VA until veterans have access to local, 
full-service medical care. Our Nation's veterans, who have selflessly 
served our country, are owed high-quality medical care in exchange for 
their courageous service. The Veteran's Health Equity Act will 
guarantee that they receive that care in a local health care facility.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 242. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under part A of 
title I of that Act may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to 
introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds 
are targeted to help our Nation's neediest students learn.
  Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the 
country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, 
including about 3 million California school children.
  Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds 
to be used for academic instruction and instructional services, the 
Federal Government has never provided clear guidelines for how these 
important dollars should be used.
  This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as 
States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability 
standards established under ``No Child Left Behind''.
  While State administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet 
these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to 
how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
  I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this 
process as clear as possible to States and school districts.
  This legislation would define Title I direct and indirect 
instructional services.
  It would set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be 
used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this 
program.
  It would ensure that the majority, 90 percent, of Title I funds are 
used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school 
district may not use more than 10 percent of these funds for 
administrative or indirect instructional services.
  By setting a standard for the amount of funds that school districts 
can spend on administrative or indirect services, we ensure that the 
majority of Title I dollars are used by districts to help improve 
student academic achievement.
  Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can 
apply

[[Page S392]]

the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.
  Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and 
other instructional personnel, including employee benefits; intervening 
and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; 
purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, 
and other instructional equipment; developing and administering 
curriculum, educational materials and assessments.
  Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of 
Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering 
the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance or 
janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of 
utility costs; buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at 
conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional 
development.
  Current law on Title I is much too vague.
  It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds 
received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that 
would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from 
non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in 
programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''
  Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the 
``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.
  The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document 
that explains how Title I funds can be used.
  Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically 
prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment 
to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a 
parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental 
involvement'' meeting.
  We should give the Department, States, and school districts clearer 
guidance in law.
  During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to 
get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate 
version of the bill.
  Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was 
stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the 
General Accounting Office to report on how States use their Title I 
funds.
  In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to 
submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
  What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent 
of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based 
on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what 
constitutes administrative expenditures.''
  Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much 
of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.
  Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout 
the States, the accounting office created its own definition by 
compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report.
  The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--
to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the 
definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions 
to their report.
  The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of 
universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal 
guidance on effective uses of Title I funds; and the government's 
inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low-
income students are being met.
  This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States 
to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance 
needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
  My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe 
that States must use their limited Federal Title I dollars for the 
fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students 
learn.
  Second, I believe that it is nearly impossible to achieve this 
fundamental purpose without providing a clear definition of what is 
considered an instructional service.
  Federal funding is only about 8 percent of the total funding for 
elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller 
percentage of total support for public schools.
  That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on 
academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping 
disadvantaged children achieve.
  It is critical that Federal guidance be provided to ensure that Title 
I funds go where they are needed most--improving the academic 
performance of low-income children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Recod.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 242

       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 ``Title I Education Funding 
     Integrity Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received 
     under this part only for direct instructional services and 
     indirect instructional services.
       ``(2) Limitation on indirect instructional services.--A 
     local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of 
     funds received under this part for indirect instructional 
     services.
       ``(b) Instructional Services.--
       ``(1) Direct instructional services.--In this section, the 
     term `direct instructional services' means--
       ``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and 
     corrective actions to improve student achievement;
       ``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the 
     normal school day and year, including during summer school;
       ``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional 
     personnel, including providing teachers and instructional 
     personnel with employee benefits;
       ``(D) the provision of instructional services to 
     prekindergarten children to prepare such children for the 
     transition to kindergarten;
       ``(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as 
     books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment, 
     and wiring to support instructional equipment;
       ``(F) the development and administration of curricula, 
     educational materials, and assessments;
       ``(G) the transportation of students to assist the students 
     in improving academic achievement;
       ``(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including 
     providing title I coordinators with employee benefits; and
       ``(I) the provision of professional development for 
     teachers and other instructional personnel.
       ``(2) Indirect instructional services.--In this section, 
     the term `indirect instructional services' includes--
       ``(A) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, 
     gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the 
     payment of utility costs;
       ``(B) the payment of travel and attendance costs at 
     conferences or other meetings;
       ``(C) the payment of legal services;
       ``(D) the payment of business services, including payroll, 
     purchasing, accounting, and data processing costs; and
       ``(E) any other services determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Ensign, 
        Ms. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Burr, 
        Mr. Dodd, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 243. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the Secretary of the Treasury to establish the standard mileage rate 
for use of a passenger automobile for purposes of the charitable 
contributions deduction and to exclude charitable mileage 
reimbursements for gross income; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill, the 
Giving Incentives to Volunteers Everywhere Act. In today's economic 
climate, Americans need relief--especially people who volunteer to help 
the less fortunate in their communities. We can't let an out-of-date 
mileage rate for volunteers who use their vehicles for charitable 
purposes exacerbate the pinch at the pump they are experiencing. Now,

[[Page S393]]

while it is true that gas prices have retreated from their historic 
highs since last summer, the principle still stands: the Internal 
Revenue Service, IRS, should have discretion in setting the mileage 
rate for charitable organizations. This legislation will provide 
immediate relief for volunteers serving our elderly, poor, frail, and 
at-risk Americans. I'm pleased that the senior Senator from Maine, 
Senator Snowe, and my other colleagues, the senior Senator from New 
York, Senator Schumer, and the junior Senator from Nevada, Senator 
Ensign, have joined me in introducing this legislation. They have 
worked extremely hard on this issue. I would also like to thank 
Senators Grassley, Feingold, Leahy, Alexander, Sanders, Burr, Dodd, and 
Cantwell for being original co-sponsors of this bill.
  The Internal Revenue Code does not fix a rate for individuals who are 
required to use their own vehicle for work, or for individuals taking a 
mileage deduction for moving purposes. The IRS is able to increase the 
deduction amount for these purposes to reflect the current economic 
climate and dramatically higher fuel prices. This is exactly what the 
IRS recently did.
  Last July, the IRS modified the standard mileage rates for computing 
the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, 
or moving expenses. The revised standard mileage rate for business 
purposes increased from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 cents. For medical 
and moving expenses, the IRS increased the rate from 19 cents per mile 
to 27 cents per mile. I think the Nation's volunteers who travel on 
behalf of charitable organizations deserve an increase in their mileage 
rate, too.
  Just recently, the IRS again modified the standard mileage rates for 
computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, 
medical, or moving expenses. As of January 1, the revised standard 
mileage rate for business purposes was decreased from 58.5 cents to 55 
cents. For medical and moving expenses, the IRS decreased the rate from 
27 cents per mile to 24 cents per mile. This ability to change the rate 
due to the cost of gasoline or the economic climate is crucial and 
should be permitted for the Nation's charitable organizations.
  My bill gives the IRS flexibility in setting the rate so that 
volunteers for charitable organizations could be given the same tax 
benefit accruing for moving, medical, and business expenses. It also 
provides a floor for volunteers, not allowing their rate to be set 
lower than moving and medical rate. In today's climate of increasing 
food and fuel prices, this bill will help relieve some of the pressure 
on charitable organizations and their volunteers. Additionally, this 
bill will allow the organization to reimburse the volunteer up to the 
business rate without any tax impact to volunteers.
  Take Meals on Wheels, for example. This organization delivers 
nutritious meals and other nutrition services to men and women who are 
elderly, homebound, disabled, frail, or otherwise at-risk. The services 
Meals on Wheels provides significantly improve the recipients' quality 
of life and health, and often help to postpone institutionalization.
  Over the past year, there has been nearly a 20 percent increase in 
fuel and food prices, coupled with reduced government funding and fewer 
donations across the country. Nearly 60 percent of the estimated 5,000 
programs that operate under the auspices of the Meals on Wheels 
Association of America have lost volunteers, in large part because it 
became too expensive for the volunteers to drive back and forth. Nearly 
half the programs have eliminated routes or consolidated meal services. 
About 38 percent of the programs have switched to delivering frozen 
meals, and about 30 percent are cutting personal visits from 5 days a 
week to one.
  In Maryland, the Central Maryland Meals on Wheels has experienced an 
increase of 7 percent in food costs and suppliers are charging higher 
delivery fees. The cost to fill up the vans with gas has increased. 
Fuel costs averaged $72,538.70 in fiscal year 2007; this year, the 
costs have jumped to $86,790.63. This is an organization with 
volunteers serving over 3,100 elderly, disabled, frail, and at-risk 
Marylanders. Its volunteers deserve relief from high gas prices just as 
much as people who use their car for work or for medical purposes or 
for moving.
  Throughout the United States, Meals on Wheels served over 3 million 
people and more than 250 million meals in fiscal year 2006. This is 
just one of thousands of charitable organizations. We need to encourage 
and support the Meals on Wheels volunteers and all other volunteers who 
need their cars to help their neighbors and communities. The Giving 
Incentives to Volunteers Everywhere bill will do just that, and I hope 
my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 243

       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 ``Giving Incentives to 
     Volunteers Everywhere Act of 2009'' or the ``GIVE Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR CHARITABLE 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (i) of section 170 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard mileage 
     rate for use of passenger automobile) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Standard Mileage Rate for Use of Passenger 
     Automobile.--For purposes of computing the deduction under 
     this section for use of a passenger automobile, the standard 
     mileage rate shall be the rate determined by the Secretary, 
     which rate shall not be less than the standard mileage rate 
     used for purposes of section 213.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to miles traveled after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR CHARITABLE MILEAGE 
                   REIMBURSEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139C. CHARITABLE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, gross 
     income shall not include amounts received from an 
     organization described in section 170(c)(2) as reimbursement 
     of operating expenses with respect to the use of a passenger 
     automobile for the benefit of such organization.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The amount excluded from gross income 
     under subsection (a) shall not exceed the product of the 
     standard mileage rate used for purposes of section 162 
     multiplied by the number of miles traveled for which such 
     reimbursement is made.
       ``(c) Application to Volunteer Services Only.--Subsection 
     (a) shall not apply with respect to any expenses relating to 
     the performance of services for compensation.
       ``(d) No Double Benefit.--A taxpayer may not claim a 
     deduction or credit under any other provision of this title 
     with respect to reimbursements excluded from income under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(e) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041 
     shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from 
     income under subsection (a).
       ``(f) Maintenance of Records.--For purposes of this 
     section, no exclusion shall be allowed under subsection (a) 
     for any reimbursement unless with respect to such 
     reimbursement the taxpayer meets substantiation requirements 
     similar to the requirements of section 274(d).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part 
     III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 139C. Charitable mileage reimbursement.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to miles traveled after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 245. A bill to expand, train, and support all sectors of the 
health care workforce to care for the growing population of older 
individuals in the United States; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Retooling the 
Health Care Workforce for an aging America Act, a bill that will 
address the impending and severe shortage of health care workers who 
are adequately trained and prepared to care for older Americans. The 
unfortunate fact of the matter is that while our country is aging 
rapidly, the number of health care workers devoted to caring for older 
Americans is experiencing a shortage--one that will only grow more 
desperate as the need for these caregivers skyrockets.

[[Page S394]]

  We face many challenges. We know that few nursing programs require 
coursework in geriatrics and that in medical schools, comprehensive 
geriatric training is a rarity. Currently, only one percent of all 
physicians are certified geriatricians, even as the population of older 
people is on track to double by 2030, and less than one percent of all 
nurses are certified gerontological nurses. Absent any change, by 2020, 
the supply of nurses in the United States will fall 29 percent below 
projected requirements, resulting in a severe shortage of nursing 
expertise relative to the demand for care of frail older adults.
  Ensuring that health care workers are properly trained in the 
provision of care to our seniors is vital. For the direct care 
workforce, which includes home care aides and personal care attendants, 
we know that state training requirements vary enormously, despite the 
fact that studies show that more training is correlated with better 
staff recruitment and retention. We also know that family caregivers 
want enhanced education and training to develop the necessary skills to 
provide the best possible care for an ailing family member. There are 
more than 44 million people providing care for a family member or 
friend nationwide. These caregivers frequently do the same work as a 
professional caregiver, but they do so voluntarily and with little or 
no training. To their loved one, they are the doctor, the nurse, the 
assistant, the therapist, and oftentimes the sole source of emotional 
and financial support.
  Fortunately, knowing what we need to change is half the battle. The 
bill I introduce today will expand, train, and support the workforce 
that is dedicated to providing care for the older members of our 
population, incorporating the major recommendations for improving the 
skills and preparedness of the health care workforce put forth in the 
Institute of Medicine report, ``Retooling for an Aging America: 
Building the Healthcare Workforce.'' It has the support of many 
national organizations, such as AARP, the American Health Care 
Association, the American Association of Homes and Services for the 
Aging, Consumers Union, Family Caregiver Alliance, the National 
Alliance for Caregiving, the National Association of Area Agencies on 
Aging, Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the 
National Association for Home Care and Hospice, Paraprofessional 
HealthCare Institute, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, 
Alliance for Aging Research, and The Catholic Health Association.
  By the year 2020, it is estimated that the number of older adults in 
need of care will increase by one-third. The United States will not be 
able to meet the approaching demand for health care and long-term care 
without a workforce that is prepared for the job. Bolstering the health 
care workforce will be an integral part of national health care reform, 
and I look forward to working with Finance and HELP Committee leaders 
on incorporating this legislation into their policy proposals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 246. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
quality of care provided to veterans in Department of Veterans Affairs 
medical facilities, to encourage highly qualified doctors to serve in 
hard-to-fill positions in such medical facilities, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the fall of 2007, at least nine 
veterans died at the Marion VA Medical Center as a result of the poor 
medical care they received. We immediately learned that a VA surgeon, 
who had operated on some of these veterans, was not qualified to work 
at the VA but slipped through the hiring process. Later, VA 
investigations revealed much larger problems in the management of the 
facility--problems that employees kept secret out of fear for losing 
their jobs. Today, I am reintroducing legislation to help ensure that 
incidents like these never take place again at Marion or another VA 
medical center.
  I asked the VA to investigate the circumstances surrounding these 
unfortunate deaths as soon as they came to light. The VA investigation 
revealed that Marion hospital management knew that doctors, including 
the surgeon at issue, were not properly credentialed but failed to act. 
The surgeon remained employed at the Marion hospital and practiced 
there for more than a year. Had he not been hired to work at Marion, 
many of his patients may have survived their surgeries.
  The VA investigation revealed additional quality of care issues at 
the Marion hospital. Management disregarded VA quality care directives 
in the face of serious patient incident reports and surgical data 
collected to ensure quality of care. They ignored or failed to 
recognize warning signs that there were problems in the surgical 
program.
  The investigation also showed many Marion Medical Center employees 
feared reporting quality of care issues. They worried that quality of 
care might be suffering at the facility but hesitated to report those 
concerns for fear of losing their jobs. A primary reason is that such 
reports were funneled through management at the facility, rather than 
being handled by an independent and confidential outlet focused solely 
on quality of care.
  The legislation I am introducing would improve quality of care across 
the VA medical care system.
  First, it would improve the process of vetting doctors who apply to 
or work for the VA and restore accountability to physician hiring and 
retention practices.
  Second, the legislation would expand the quality control programs in 
the VA health care system. The bill creates new quality assurance 
officer positions, gives VA employees new forums to raise concerns 
about the quality of care at a VA facility, without fear of 
retribution, and establishes strong peer review mechanisms for 
physicians.
  Third, the legislation would create incentives to encourage high-
quality doctors to practice at VA hospitals. In return for agreeing to 
practice in hard-to-serve areas, doctors and medical students could 
participate in student loan forgiveness and tuition reimbursement 
programs. Doctors would also be eligible to participate in the federal 
employee health insurance program.
  Fourth, where practical, VA medical facilities would be required to 
establish affiliations with nearby medical schools. These partnerships 
would expose medical students to careers with the VA. In return, the VA 
would benefit from the energy and innovative ideas brought by students 
working in their facilities. In addition, VA hospitals would benefit 
from access to experienced medical school faculty members.
  Finally, the bill would encourage the VA to increase its recruitment 
of experienced doctors who are willing to practice for our veterans. 
The VA must hire and retain only highly qualified doctors as it takes 
on these tremendous responsibilities.
  Every one of the tragic deaths at the Marion VA hospital violated the 
obligation our Nation owes to its veterans. Each of their lives can 
never be replaced. The Veterans Health Care Quality Improvement Act is 
a strong step toward avoiding such tragedies in the future and 
reestablishing trust in the veterans health care system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 247. A bill to accelerate motor fuel savins nationwide and provide 
incentives to registered owners of high fuel consumption automobiles to 
replace such automobiles with fuel efficient automobiles or public 
transportation; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act.'' This 
legislation is cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins and Charles 
Schumer. A companion bill is also being introduced today in the House 
of Representatives by Mr. Israel and Mr. Inslee.
  Let me first acknowledge the important role of one of my colleagues, 
Senator Salazar, who initiated much of the thought and drafting for 
this legislation at the end of the last Congress. I thank him for his 
leadership, and I thank him for letting us take up the work needed to 
move this bill forward as he begins to transition into his new role 
with the incoming Obama administration.
  Last Congress, we successfully enacted legislation--which I authored

[[Page S395]]

with Senator Snowe and others--to improve the fuel efficiency of 
America's fleet of new cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon 
over 10 years, or from 25 miles per gallon to at least 35 miles per 
gallon by 2020.
  But the fact is that we face real challenges with trying to encourage 
drivers to trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles for a 
cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicle--particularly in this tough 
economic climate.
  This bill is designed to address that problem.
  First, let me explain this legislation.
  This bill would establish an incentive program at the Department of 
Energy to provide a voucher, or coupon, of between $2,500 to $4,500 to 
a consumer who trades in an inefficient, used vehicle for a much more 
efficient car, truck, or SUV.
  The traded-in vehicles--which must be then dismantled or scrapped--
must meet the following requirements; have a fuel economy of no more 
than 18 miles per gallons, be in drivable condition, and have been 
registered for at least the past 120 days.
  To receive the benefit of the coupon, purchased vehicles must exceed 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards for that class of 
vehicle by at least 25 percent and have a suggested retail price below 
$45,000.

  The size of the coupon varies based upon the expected oil savings 
created by trading in the vehicle.
  The voucher program will be set up to provide larger credits to new, 
more recent vehicles that would otherwise be on the road for many more 
years, while older ``clunker'' models would be eligible for smaller 
credits.
  The bill specifies that during the first year of the program, 
vouchers will be issued for the following amounts: For model year 2002 
and later: new vehicle: $4,500, used vehicle: $3,000, transit fare 
credit: $3,000. For model year 1999-2001: new vehicle: $3,000, used 
vehicle: $2,000, transit fare credit: $2,000. For model year 1998 and 
earlier: new vehicle: $2,500, used vehicle: $1,500, transit fare 
credit: $1,500. In each subsequent year, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the 
model years would be advanced by 1 year.
  Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to 2 years after the 
date of issuance, and no individual would be eligible to obtain more 
than one voucher in any 3-year period.
  Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be 
eligible for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an alternative amount to 
be specified by the Secretary of Energy.
  Simply put, this legislation offers a unique opportunity to both 
stimulate automobile industry sales and reduce vehicular oil use, 
creating a win-win policy for all involved.
  As we know, our Nation's automobile industry is in serious trouble.
  Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford have all asserted in their recent 
viability plans that their dire financial situation is a direct result 
of the collapse in automobile sales.
  The new car sales rate has dropped to less than 11 million vehicles 
sold annually, compared to the 16.2 million vehicles sold in the United 
States in 2007.
  The major Detroit and Japanese carmakers all reported double digit 
sales drops for December. General Motors reported sales dropped 31 
percent; Ford Motor Co. reported a drop of 32 percent; Chrysler LLC 
reported sales plummeted 53 percent; Honda Motor Co. said its sales 
fell 34 percent; Nissan North America said its sales fell 30 percent 
and Toyota Motor Co. said its U.S. sales fell 37 percent.

  Bottom line: The automobile companies are all in trouble because far 
fewer people are buying automobiles.
  According to J.D. Power and Associates, this has produced dealer lots 
full of vehicles that can't be sold. Over the past year the number of 
days that a vehicle sits on a lot has almost doubled.
  The problem is most severe for Chrysler, GM and Ford. Their vehicles 
all sat on dealer lots for in excess of 100 days last year.
  By encouraging automobile sales, this legislation would go a long way 
to addressing the significant troubles that America's once mighty car 
industry now faces.
  While emergency bridge loans help auto companies make payroll, only 
stimulating automobile sales will cure the disease that confronts the 
automobile sector.
  By creating a voucher system for the purchase of a vehicle with 
certain attributes, this legislation would stimulate sales at precisely 
the right moment.
  Perhaps that is why General Motors went out of its way to endorse 
this kind of program in its recent Viability Plan, recommended ``tax 
credits for scrapping older, higher-carbon emitting vehicles.''
  This legislation would also assist owners of the least efficient 
vehicles who are least likely to trade their cars in for something more 
efficient.
  The trade-in value of inefficient vehicles has plummeted, making a 
trade-in financially difficult.
  In a November 2008 analysis, Kelley Blue Book concluded: ``[T]his 
year's vehicles with the lowest retained value include vehicles that 
are not fuel friendly with large V-8 engines. . . . These gas misers . 
. . will only maintain 20 percent of their original value after five 
years of ownership.''
  Bottom line: The legislation is stimulus of the most important kind. 
It would provide incentives for new vehicle sales, incentivize the 
trade-in of inefficient vehicles, and reward consumers who want to 
reduce their oil use and carbon footprint.
  This proposal also provides important benefits for the environment--
and addressing the challenges of climate change.
  I have been a long time champion of increasing fuel economy 
standards, and I was extremely proud to have authored the new fuel 
economy law with Senator Snowe, which was enacted by Congress and 
signed into law in December 2007.

  But new CAFE standards will not take effect until model year 2011. 
They cannot make up for our failure to increase standards for the past 
3 decades.
  The bill we are introducing today would target the very vehicles that 
CAFE standards are unable to reach: older fuel-inefficient cars, trucks 
and SUVs
  It will provide incentives to consumers who wish to buy the most 
efficient vehicles available during the 2 years before the new CAFE 
standards will require improvement.
  It will provide incentives to remove the most inefficient vehicles 
that would have never been part of the fleet had Congress acted to 
increase CAFE standards 5 years ago.
  The result is considerable oil savings and significant reductions of 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  According to analysis by the non-partisan American Council for an 
Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, by 2013 this legislation would prompt 
the trade in of between 500,000 and 1 million of the dirtiest, least 
efficient vehicles on the road today.
  As a result, by 2013 between 40,000 and 80,000 fewer barrels of oil 
per day will be burned; between 6.6 million metric tons and 13.3 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year will not be emitted.
  This is the equivalent of removing between 1.1 million and 2.2 
million cars from the road.
  In our current economic and environmental circumstance, there are few 
opportunities to both help the automobile industry evolve and improve 
the fuel economy of the fleet.
  This idea--providing consumers with an incentive to trade in their 
inefficient vehicle for something far better--will stimulate the 
economy and save oil, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I strongly encourage the Obama administration and the Appropriations 
Committee to authorize and fund this proposal in the stimulus.
  I am committed to advancing the goals of stimulus and fuel savings, 
and have put what I believe to be the best proposal to meet these 
goals.
  I understand that within the details of this idea, there may be 
different views. I am open to suggestions that improve the structure of 
the program proposed by this legislation, and ask my colleagues to 
communicate their thoughts soon.
  Finally, I hope non-related matters--such as trade policy--will not 
prevent my colleagues from supporting this legislation.
  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:

[[Page S396]]

                                 S. 247

       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 ``Accelerated Retirement of 
     Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Automobile; manufacturer; model; model year.--The terms 
     ``automobile'', ``manufacturer'', ``model'', and ``model 
     year'' have the meanings given such terms in section 32901(a) 
     of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Certificate of title.--The term ``certificate of 
     title'' means a State-issued document showing ownership of an 
     automobile.
       (3) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' means a person residing in 
     a State that engages in the sale, lease, or distribution of 
     new automobiles to the first person (except a dealer buying 
     as a dealer) that is an ultimate purchaser.
       (4) Dismantler.--The term ``dismantler'' means a person 
     residing in a State who is licensed to operate a business 
     employing 3 or more persons to take automobiles apart for the 
     purpose of reclaiming usable parts and recyclable materials.
       (5) Eligible fleet operator.--The term ``eligible fleet 
     operator'' means--
       (A) the operator of a fleet of automobiles that is owned by 
     a State, Indian tribe, or local government; or
       (B) the owner of 2 or more automobiles authorized to carry 
     passengers for hire under State, tribal, or local regulations 
     governing the operation of taxi cabs.
       (6) Eligible high fuel consumption automobile.--The term 
     ``eligible high fuel consumption automobile'' means a high 
     fuel consumption automobile that, at the time it is presented 
     for participation in the program established under section 
     3--
       (A) is in drivable condition; and
       (B) has been continuously registered and licensed to 
     operate in any State for a period of not fewer than 120 
     consecutive days for operation on public roads.
       (7) Fuel efficient automobile.--The term ``fuel efficient 
     automobile'' means an automobile manufactured for any model 
     year after 2003 that, at the time of the original sale to a 
     consumer--
       (A) carries a manufacturer's suggested retail price of 
     $45,000 or less;
       (B) complies with the applicable air emission and related 
     requirements under the National Emission Standards Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7521 et seq.);
       (C) qualifies for listing in emission bin 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 
     (as defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations); and
       (D)(i) for automobiles manufactured in any of the model 
     years 2004 through 2010, achieves a measured fuel economy 
     level that exceeds by 25 percent the fuel economy standard 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 
     32902 of title 49, United States Code, for the model year and 
     compliance category of such automobile; or
       (ii) for automobiles manufactured for any model year after 
     2010, achieves a measured fuel economy level that exceeds by 
     25 percent the fuel economy target prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Transportation under such section 32902 for the 
     model year and automobile attribute group into which such 
     automobile is classified.
       (8) High fuel consumption automobile.--The term ``high fuel 
     consumption automobile'' means an automobile manufactured for 
     any model year before 2008 for which the originally certified 
     measured fuel economy level is less than 18 miles per gallon.
       (9) Measured fuel economy level.--The term ``measured fuel 
     economy level'' means the fuel economy level of a new 
     automobile model measured in accordance with section 32904 of 
     title 49, United States Code, and regulations prescribed 
     thereunder.
       (10) New automobile.--The term ``new automobile'' means an 
     automobile for which a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer 
     has never transferred the equitable or legal title to such 
     automobile to an ultimate purchaser.
       (11) Nonpassenger automobile.--The term ``nonpassenger 
     automobile'' means an automobile classified as a light truck 
     under part 523 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (12) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (13) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Accelerated 
     Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Program established under 
     section 3.
       (14) Registered owner.--The term ``registered owner'' 
     means, with respect to an automobile, the person whose name 
     appears on the current State certificate of registration for 
     such automobile.
       (15) Scrap recycling facility.--The term ``scrap recycling 
     facility'' means a business--
       (A) employing 3 or more individuals at a fixed location in 
     a State, where machinery and equipment are utilized for 
     processing and manufacturing scrap metal into prepared 
     grades; and
       (B) whose principal product is scrap iron, scrap steel, or 
     nonferrous metallic scrap for sale for remelting purposes.
       (16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (17) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 32101 of title 49, United States Code.
       (18) Ultimate purchaser.--The term ``ultimate purchaser'' 
     means, with respect to any new automobile, the first person 
     who in good faith purchases such automobile for purposes 
     other than resale.
       (19) Voucher.--The term ``voucher'' means a voucher issued 
     to the registered owner of an eligible high fuel consumption 
     automobile under section 3(a).

     SEC. 3. ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF INEFFICIENT VEHICLES 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of Energy a program to be known as the ``Accelerated 
     Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Program'', through which 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) authorize the issuance of a voucher, subject to the 
     limitations described in subsection (e)(1), to any person or 
     eligible fleet operator who is a registered owner of an 
     eligible high fuel consumption automobile, which voucher may 
     be used solely by such person or eligible fleet operator for 
     the purchase of a new or used fuel efficient automobile upon 
     the transfer of the certificate of title to such high fuel 
     consumption automobile to a dealer, dismantler, or scrap 
     recycling facility participating in the Program;
       (2) allow any dealer, dismantler, or scrap recycling 
     facility to participate in the Program if the dealer, 
     dismantler, or scrap recycling facility agrees to--
       (A) scrap any eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     upon receiving the certificate of title to such automobile 
     pursuant to the Program;
       (B) issue a voucher to the registered owner of such 
     automobile;
       (C) certify to the Secretary that such automobile has been 
     crushed or shredded in accordance with subsection (e)(4); and
       (D) comply with all applicable requirements under this Act 
     and any regulations promulgated by the Secretary to carry out 
     this Act;
       (3) require that all dealers accept vouchers presented by a 
     person or eligible fleet operator described in paragraph (1) 
     as partial payment for the purchase of a new or used fuel 
     efficient automobile; and
       (4) make payments to dealers for vouchers accepted by such 
     dealers under paragraph (3) between January 1, 2009 and 
     December 31, 2014, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.
       (b) Amount of Voucher.--
       (1) Voucher redemption value if used toward purchase of new 
     fuel efficient automobile.--A voucher issued under the 
     Program during the 4-year period beginning on January 1, 
     2009, may be applied to offset the purchase price of a new 
     fuel efficient automobile by--
       (A) $4,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     was manufactured for a model year that is 7 or fewer years 
     less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued;
       (B) $3,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     was manufactured for a model year that is 8 to 10 years less 
     than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued; and
       (C) $2,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     was manufactured for a model year that is 11 or more years 
     less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued.
       (2) Voucher redemption value if used toward purchase of 
     used fuel efficient automobile.--A voucher issued under the 
     Program during the 4-year period beginning on January 1, 
     2009, may be applied to offset the purchase price of a used 
     fuel efficient automobile by--
       (A) $3,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     was manufactured for a model year that is 7 or fewer years 
     less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued;
       (B) $2,000 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     was manufactured for a model year that is 8 to 10 years less 
     than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued; and
       (C) $1,500 if the eligible high fuel consumption automobile 
     was manufactured for a model year that is 11 or more years 
     less than the calendar year in which the voucher was issued.
       (3) Voucher redemption value if used toward purchase of a 
     highly fuel efficient automobile.--The values determined 
     under paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be increased by $1,000 if 
     the voucher issued under the Program is applied to offset the 
     purchase price of a fuel efficient automobile that achieves a 
     measured fuel economy level that exceeds by 50 percent the 
     fuel economy standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under section 32902 of title 49, United States 
     Code, for the model year and compliance category of such 
     automobile.
       (4) Voucher redemption value if used for transit fare 
     credits.--A voucher issued under the program during the 4-
     year period beginning on January 1, 2009, may be applied to 
     acquire single-passenger transit fare credits from 
     participating transit operators in an amount equal to the 
     amounts provided under paragraph (2).
       (c) Administrative Payments to Participating Dealers, 
     Dismantlers, and Scrap Recycling Facilities.--The Secretary 
     shall provide for a payment of $50, or another amount 
     determined reasonable by the Secretary, to participating 
     dealers, dismantlers, and scrap recycling facilities for each 
     voucher issued under the Program in consideration of the 
     administrative costs related to such issuance.
       (d) Lists of Eligible Automobiles to Be Maintained.--The 
     Secretary, in cooperation

[[Page S397]]

     with the Secretary of Transportation, shall prepare, 
     maintain, publicize, and make available through the Internet, 
     lists of automobiles, classified by make and model, which are 
     classified under this section as--
       (1) eligible high fuel consumption automobiles;
       (2) new fuel efficient automobiles; or
       (3) used fuel efficient automobiles.
       (e) Program Specifications.--
       (1) Limitations.--
       (A) Vouchers per person.--Not more than 1 voucher may be 
     issued to a person in any period of 3 successive calendar 
     years. A person may be issued a voucher if the person 
     demonstrates, in a manner prescribed by rule by the 
     Secretary, that such person--
       (i) is the registered owner of an eligible high fuel 
     consumption automobile; and
       (ii) attests that such high fuel consumption automobile has 
     not been imported into the United States during the previous 
     4-month period.
       (B) Vouchers for eligible fleets.--A voucher for the 
     purchase of a new or used fuel efficient automobile from a 
     dealer may be issued to an eligible fleet operator for each 
     eligible high fuel consumption automobile for which such 
     eligible fleet operator is the registered owner, as 
     demonstrated in a manner prescribed by rule by the Secretary.
       (C) Offset.--A dealer--
       (i) shall credit the amount of the voucher being applied 
     toward the purchase of a fuel efficient automobile; and
       (ii) may not offset the amount of the voucher against any 
     other rebate or discount otherwise being offered by the 
     dealer or manufacturer.
       (D) Joint ownership.--Not more than 1 voucher may be issued 
     to the joint owners of an eligible high fuel consumption 
     automobile, unless such automobile is operated by an eligible 
     fleet operator.
       (E) No combination of vouchers.--A person may not apply 2 
     or more vouchers issued under the Program toward the purchase 
     of a single fuel efficient automobile.
       (F) Combination with other incentives permitted.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the availability 
     or use of a Federal or State tax incentive or a State-issued 
     voucher for the purchase of a fuel efficient automobile shall 
     not limit the value or issuance of a voucher under the 
     Program to any person or eligible fleet operator otherwise 
     eligible to receive such a voucher.
       (G) Duration.--Each voucher shall expire 2 years after the 
     date on which the voucher is issued and may not be renewed.
       (H) Prompt fulfillment of redemption requests required.--
     The Secretary shall provide for the payment of all vouchers 
     submitted to the Secretary for redemption in accordance with 
     the provisions of this Act not later than 60 days after such 
     submission, or within such lesser period as the Secretary 
     determines to be practicable.
       (I) Number and amount.--The total number and value of 
     vouchers issued under the Program may not exceed the amounts 
     appropriated for such purpose.
       (2) Consumer education program.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out a consumer education program aimed at informing persons 
     about the Program, its fuel economy purposes, and the 
     availability of vouchers under the Program.
       (3) Transit fare credits.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that allow operators of bus and rail public 
     transit systems to redeem vouchers properly issued to any 
     person under this Act to offset the purchase price of annual 
     transit passes or any other form of individual transit fare 
     credit designated by the transit system operator. 
     Participating transit system operators shall establish the 
     terms and conditions for the ownership, use, and expiration 
     of any transit fare credits acquired through the use of a 
     voucher issued under this Act.
       (4) Disposition of eligible high fuel consumption 
     automobiles.--
       (A) In general.--Any automobile dealer, dismantler, or 
     scrap recycling facility who receives a certificate of title 
     to any eligible high fuel consumption automobile in exchange 
     for a voucher under the Program shall certify to the 
     Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by 
     rule, that such automobile and engine--
       (i) have been crushed or shredded within such period as the 
     Secretary prescribes;
       (ii) have been processed prior to crushing or shredding to 
     ensure the removal and appropriate disposition of 
     refrigerants, antifreeze, lead products, mercury switches, 
     and such other toxic or hazardous vehicle components as the 
     Secretary may specify by rule; and
       (iii) have not been, and will not be, sold, leased, 
     exchanged, or otherwise disposed of for use as an automobile 
     in the United States or in any other country.
       (B) Savings provision.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be 
     construed to preclude a dismantler from--
       (i) selling any parts of such scrapped automobile other 
     than the engine block and drive train for use as replacement 
     parts; or
       (ii) retaining the proceeds from such sale.
       (C) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the 
     Attorney General to ensure that the National Motor Vehicle 
     Title Information System is appropriately updated to reflect 
     the crushing or shredding of high fuel consumption 
     automobiles under this section.
       (f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to implement the Program, including--
       (1) the removal and disposition of toxic or hazardous 
     materials from eligible high fuel consumption vehicles 
     presented for participation in the program; and
       (2) the enforcement of the penalties described in section 
     4.
       (g) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this Act or any other provision 
     of law limits the authority of Congress or the Secretary to 
     terminate or limit the Program or the issuance of vouchers 
     under the Program.

     SEC. 4. PENALTIES.

       (a) Violation.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     violate any provision under this Act or any regulations 
     issued pursuant to section 3(f).
       (b) Penalties.--Any person who commits a violation 
     described in subsection (a) shall be liable to the United 
     States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 
     for each violation. A separate violation shall be deemed to 
     have occurred for each day the person continues to be in 
     violation of any provision under this Act.

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       The Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives every 
     6 months that specifies, for the most recent 6-month period--
       (1) the number of vouchers which have been used under the 
     Program; and
       (2) the make, model, model year, location of sale, and 
     manufacturing location of each vehicle traded in or purchased 
     under the Program.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated, for each of the 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014, such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this Act, which sums shall remain available 
     until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 248. A bill to prohibit the use of certain interrogation 
techniques and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on 
Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I 
introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and 
Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence 
Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other 
things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only 
in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was 
designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used 
by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might 
be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. 
Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach.
  First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the 
Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was 
meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. 
The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to 
a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our 
legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more 
importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all 
approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be 
conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and 
a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and 
priorities.
  Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from 
the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees--
who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length 
by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of 
which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different 
from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield 
tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We 
are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence 
from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people 
involved and those potential operations they may undertake.
  The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit 
interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit 
them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to 
al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in 
interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value 
targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train 
for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard 
to figure out that if we tell them

[[Page S398]]

with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be 
used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we 
will not get anymore intelligence.
  The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than 
authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are 
allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better 
approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude 
the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. 
Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; 
No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or 
pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads 
of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, 
applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical 
pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using 
military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 
7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of 
adequate food, water, or medical care.
  Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described 
as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are 
similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field 
Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most 
important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the 
detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee 
does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though 
the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field 
Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled 
interrogator will get that information.
  I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh 
interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising 
the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be 
briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the 
opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. 
This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that 
are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply 
with law may be developed in the future.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. 
This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can 
adopt this legislation.

                          ____________________