Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)

[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.

____________________