[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22204-22221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 4059. A bill to prohibit departments, agencies, and other 
instrumentalities of the Federal Government from providing assistance 
to an entity for the development of course material or the provision of 
instruction on human development and sexuality, if such material or 
instruction will include medically inaccurate information, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my 
bill, the ``Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act.''
  My bill would require that federally-funded sex education/abstinence 
only programs contain medically accurate and factual information as 
part of any course instruction.
  During the past few years, there has been an increase in the number 
of federally funded programs using curricula that provide medically 
inaccurate or misleading information.
  Some of these medical inaccuracies include teaching young people that 
HIV can be transmitted by sweat and tears, citing failure rates of 
condoms as high as 69 percent, as well as giving inaccurate symptoms 
and outcomes of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, some 
federally funded programs provided erroneous information about basic 
scientific facts, for example, stating that human cells have 24 
chromosomes from each parent when in fact the number is 23.
  Inaccurate information regarding contraception and STD/HIV prevention 
can make sex education both dangerous and counterproductive. 
Responsible sex education, by contrast, is an important component of a 
strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of 
abortions, and mitigate the incidence of STD's.
  Instruction regarding sexual health and reproduction that includes 
inaccurate or biased information is not only irresponsible, but it is 
also dangerous, and it puts our young people at risk for unintended 
pregnancy and disease.

[[Page 22205]]

  I urge my colleagues to support medically accurate sex-education--
programs that helps young people to develop the proper understanding of 
their sexuality, so they can make responsible decisions throughout 
their lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4059

       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 ``Guarantee of Medical 
     Accuracy in Sex Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) A 2006 Government Accountability Office report entitled 
     ``Abstinence Education: Efforts to Assess the Accuracy and 
     Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs'' finds that the 
     Department of Health and Human Services does not review the 
     content of the major federally funded abstinence-only 
     education programs for accuracy.
       (2) All federally funded programs aimed at helping young 
     people make healthy decisions regarding their relationships 
     and sexual health should include medically accurate 
     information.
       (3) A 2004 report from the Minority Office of the Committee 
     on Government Reform of the House of Representatives found 
     serious medical inaccuracies associated with a large majority 
     of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
       (4) The Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM) found in a 
     2006 position paper that abstinence-only-until-marriage 
     programs ``provide incomplete and/or misleading information'' 
     and states that ``efforts to promote abstinence should be 
     based on sound science''.
       (5) The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     have also expressed ``the importance of ensuring that all 
     federally funded sexuality education programs include 
     information that is medically accurate and complete''.
       (6) The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that 
     ``children and adolescents need accurate and comprehensive 
     education about sexuality to practice healthy sexual behavior 
     as adults''.
       (7) The American Public Health Association (APHA) 
     ``recognize[s] that sexuality is a normal, healthy aspect of 
     human development ... and that individuals of all ages 
     require complete and accurate information about all aspects 
     of sexuality''. APHA ``endorses the right of children and 
     youth to receive comprehensive sexuality education that 
     includes facts, information, and data and that demonstrates 
     an appreciation of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity''.
       (8) The American Medical Association ``urges schools to 
     implement comprehensive, developmentally appropriate 
     sexuality education programs that are based on rigorous, peer 
     reviewed science''.
       (9) Over 1 billion dollars in citizen taxpayer money has 
     been spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the 
     past quarter century without significant monitoring of the 
     content of these programs in order to guarantee they contain 
     medically accurate information and exclude inaccurate data.

     SEC. 3. MEDICALLY INACCURATE SEX EDUCATION.

       (a) Requirements.--A department, agency, or other 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government shall not provide 
     funds or other assistance to an entity for the development of 
     course material or the provision of instruction on human 
     development and sexuality, including any sex education, 
     family life education, abstinence education, comprehensive 
     health education, or character education, if such material or 
     instruction will include medically inaccurate information. 
     Before providing such funds or other assistance, the 
     department, agency, or instrumentality shall require a 
     sufficient assurance that such material or instruction will 
     not include medically inaccurate information.
       (b) Definitions.--In this Act, the term ``medically 
     inaccurate information'' means information related to 
     medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, or 
     statistical statements that is unsupported or contradicted by 
     peer-reviewed research by leading medical, psychological, 
     psychiatric, and public health organizations and agencies.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 4060. A bill to amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to 
improve and enhance due process and appellate procedures, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise to introduce the Effective Terrorists 
Prosecution Act of 2006. This legislation would make critically 
important changes to the measure that Congress narrowly approved on 
September 29, the Mi1itary Commissions Act of 2006. Let me be clear 
from the outset of my remarks. I will take a backseat to no one when it 
comes to defending our country against terrorism. I fully support the 
use of military commissions to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite 
judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice. Unlike the Administration, I trust the United States 
military and our legal system to arbitrate decisions related to enemy 
combatants.
  I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must 
be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my 
view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting 
victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in 
accordance with the rule of law.
  My legislation provides essential legal tools for our war on terror 
in seven key ways: It restores the writ of habeas corpus for 
individuals held in U.S. custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful 
enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities 
against the United States who are not lawful combatants. It prevents 
the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral 
practices of torture and coercion. It empowers military judges to 
exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the 
military commissions. It limits the authority of the President to 
interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and 
makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight. 
Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its 
provisions.
  Before I elaborate on each of these critical points, let me simply 
underscore the point that for more than 200 years, our Nation has 
served as a shining example in its promotion of civil and human rights 
throughout the world. Denial of basic legal proceedings to individuals 
held in the custody of the United States has raised questions over our 
basic adherence to the U.S. Constitution and also diminished our 
reputation around the world. American citizens are questioning their 
own government's judgments, terrorists are citing American abuses to 
recruit new loyalists, and American servicemembers fear detention 
overseas under similarly abusive conditions in violation of their human 
rights.
  Supporters of the administration's law may say that to speak out 
against its enactment is being soft on terrorism. Not only is this 
sentiment wholly inaccurate, it underestimates a fundamental strength 
of our Nation and the best defense against terrorists--respect for the 
rule of law.
  For instance, the administration-backed law eliminates the principle 
of habeas corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since 
before the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Under the writ of habeas 
corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions. 
My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of 
military commissions.
  The administration's approach allows the President to remove anyone 
he so chooses from America's standard jurisprudence and designate him 
or her as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he has engaged in 
hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. Such 
individuals are subject to arrest and detention indefinitely without 
charge. In contrast, my legislation allows the designation of 
``unlawful enemy combatants'' only for those individuals engaged in 
armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to 
curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that 
holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will 
prove to be the exception rather than the norm.
  Also, unlike the law backed by the administration, my bill further 
promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use 
of evidence gained by coercion in a trial. Such a provision is 
critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has 
been proven ineffective in

[[Page 22206]]

interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an 
interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it 
deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite U.S. actions to justify 
their own misconduct toward future American POWs.
  My bill grants discretion to military judges to exclude hearsay 
evidence determined to be unreliable. Under my legislation, judges are 
given discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on 
the innocence of an individual, but is excluded due to national 
security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. 
America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to 
handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to 
recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's 
bench and an affront to the U.S. military legal system. Moreover, my 
bill properly grants the Armed Forces judicial review of these 
decisions unlike the administration's law which denies the United 
States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces the right to hearing 
military commission appeals.
  And, just as important as restoring our commitment in the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice, my legislation would also reaffirm America's 
commitment to the contents of the Geneva Conventions. In contrast, the 
Administration's Military Commissions Act gives unprecedented authority 
to the president to define what interrogation techniques constitute 
``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. The United States 
President should not have the right to unilaterally define the legal 
boundaries of torture. The United States Congress has ratified 
universally recognized conventions prohibiting such conduct, and the 
President should recognize them as the law of the land. Indeed, there 
is a lesson to be learned in the events of the last 6 years, 
particularly in the case of Abu Ghraib, when not only was our Nation's 
reputation tarnished, but our commitment to the rule of law was 
credibly called into question. This is not the America our Nation's 
greatest generations have long fought for. Our country would have been 
better served if we had looked to the pages of history to guide us 
through this national crisis.
  Just 60 years ago, the United States confronted the daunting task of 
bringing history's most despicable war criminals to justice. In 
determining how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of grave atrocities, 
our country never forgot its pivotal role as the leader of the free 
world. There were strong and persuasive voices crying for the execution 
of these men who had commanded, with ruthless efficiency, the slaughter 
of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men, women, and 
children. Why should these men who had extinguished so many lives be 
given a trial at all? Why should they not be subjected to the same fate 
to which they had subjected countless innocent people? Why not just 
shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted? Why not just give in to legal 
scholars, who said there was no court, no judge, no laws, and no 
precedent?
  Why not? Because, as I have recounted on this floor on several 
occasions, America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at 
Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father, 
rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial. In 
doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this Nation should never tailor 
its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we 
did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.
  Almost 60 years to the day after the Nuremberg verdicts, Congress 
passed the Military Commissions Act, with the support of the 
administration which steps away from the high principles established at 
Nuremberg and honored in the decades since. In my view, this law has 
dishonored our Nation's proud history.
  Indeed, to watch the Senate, on the anniversary of Nuremberg, negate 
these great principles and traditions was one of the saddest days I 
have seen in a quarter century of service in this body. It pains me to 
no end to have seen the administration and its allies rush this bill 
through Congress in the days before an election with hopes of 
exploiting Americans' fears of a terrorist attack. This administration 
would have the American people believe that the war on terror requires 
a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the 
basic tenets upon which our country was founded--but not both. This 
canard is untrue and frankly negligent.
  I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake. And 
that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most 
important one--it will ensure that each of the provisions of the 
administration's Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our 
Nation's courts, and appropriately evaluated for their 
constitutionality. I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding 
the legality and probity of this highly controversial statute. But I 
believe it is essential for America's security and moral authority to 
allow those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our 
esteemed judiciary--to have an opportunity to overturn the most 
egregious provisions of this Act.
  In turn, we in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a 
bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our 
international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to 
provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools 
required by the global war on terror.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences if we fail to 
correct the mistakes that have been made. I hope that Congress and the 
administration will take a serious look at my proposal and work with me 
to improve the current system, for the sake of our security, our 
international standing, and our commitment to the rule of law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4060

       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 ``Effective Terrorists 
     Prosecution Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.

       Paragraph (1) of section 948a of title 10, United States 
     Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 
     (Public Law 109-366)), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Unlawful enemy combatant.--The term `unlawful enemy 
     combatant' means an individual who directly participates in 
     hostilities as part of an armed conflict against the United 
     States who is not a lawful enemy combatant. The term is used 
     solely to designate individuals triable by military 
     commission under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS BY 
                   COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL NOT 
                   DISPOSITIVE FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION OF 
                   MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

       Section 948d of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by 
     the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366)), 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).

     SEC. 4. EXCLUSION FROM TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF 
                   STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY COERCION.

       Section 948r of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by 
     the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366)), 
     is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting 
     the following new subsection (c):
       ``(c) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Coercion.--A 
     statement obtained by use of coercion shall not be admissible 
     in a military commission under this chapter, except against a 
     person accused of coercion as evidence that the statement was 
     made.''.

     SEC. 5. DISCRETION OF MILITARY JUDGE TO EXCLUDE HEARSAY 
                   EVIDENCE DETERMINED TO BE UNRELIABLE OR LACKING 
                   IN PROBATIVE VALUE.

       Section 949a(b)(2)(E)(ii) of title 10, United States Code 
     (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109-366)), is amended by striking ``if the party opposing 
     the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence 
     is unreliable or lacking in probative value'' and inserting 
     ``if the military judge determines, upon motion by counsel, 
     that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative 
     value''.

[[Page 22207]]



     SEC. 6. DISCRETION OF MILITARY JUDGE TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS 
                   IN EVENT THAT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CLASSIFIED 
                   EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROTECT 
                   THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

       Section 949j(d)(1) of title 10, United States Code (as 
     enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 
     109-366)), is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``If the military judge determines that the substitute is not 
     sufficient to protect the right of the defendant to a fair 
     trial, the military judge may--
       ``(A) dismiss the charges in their entirety;
       ``(B) dismiss the charges or specifications or both to 
     which the information relates; or
       ``(C) take such other actions as may be required in the 
     interest of justice.''.

     SEC. 7. REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS BY UNITED 
                   STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES 
                   RATHER THAN COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION 
                   REVIEW.

       (a) Review.--
       (1) In general.--Section 950f of title 10, United States 
     Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 
     (Public Law 109-366)), is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 950f. Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       ``(a) Cases To Be Reviewed.--The United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Armed Forces, in accordance with procedures 
     prescribed under regulations of the Secretary, shall review 
     the record in each case that is referred to the Court by the 
     convening authority under section 950c of this title with 
     respect to any matter of law raised by the accused.
       ``(b) Scope of Review.--In a case reviewed by the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under this 
     section, the Court may only act with respect to matters of 
     law.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter VI of chapter 47A of such title (as 
     so enacted) is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 950f and inserting the following new item:

``950f. Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47A of title 10, United States 
     Code (as so enacted), is further amended as follows:
       (A) In section 950c(a), by striking ``the Court of Military 
     Commission Review'' and inserting ``the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
       (B) In section 950d, by striking ``the Court of Military 
     Commission Review'' each place it appears and inserting ``the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
       (C) In section 950g(a)(2), by striking ``the Court of 
     Military Commission Review'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
     Forces''.
       (D) In section 950h, by striking ``the Court of Military 
     Commission Review'' each place it appears and inserting ``the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
       (2) Uniform code of military justice.--Section 867a(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 67a(a) of the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking 
     ``Decisions'' and inserting ``Except as provided in sections 
     950d and 950g of this title, decisions''.

     SEC. 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6(a) of the Military Commissions 
     Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting after 
     ``international character'' the following: ``and preserve the 
     capacity of the United States to prosecute nationals of enemy 
     powers for engaging in acts against members of the United 
     States Armed Forces and United States citizens that have been 
     prosecuted by the United States as war crimes in the past''; 
     and
       (B) by striking the second sentence; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``the President has the authority for the 
     United States to interpret the meaning and application of the 
     Geneva Conventions and to promulgate'' and inserting ``the 
     President has the authority, subject to congressional 
     oversight and judicial review, to promulgate''; and
       (ii) by striking ``higher standards and'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``interpretations'' 
     and inserting ``rules''; and
       (C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) The President shall notify other parties to the 
     Geneva Conventions that the United States expects members of 
     the United States Armed Forces and other United States 
     citizens detained in a conflict not of an international 
     character to be treated in a manner consistent with the 
     standards described in subparagraph (A) and embodied in 
     section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     subsection (b).''.
       (b) Modifications of War Crimes Offenses.--
       (1) Inclusion of denial of trial rights among offenses.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 2441(d) of title 18, United States 
     Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) Denial of trial rights.--The act of a person who 
     intentionally denies one or more persons the right to be 
     tried before a regularly constituted court affording all the 
     judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by 
     civilized peoples as prescribed by common Article 3 of the 
     Geneva Conventions.''.
       (2) Definition of serious physical pain or suffering.--
     Clause (ii) of subparagraph ((D) of paragraph (2) of such 
     section (as so enacted) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) serious physical pain;''.

     SEC. 9. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR INDIVIDUALS DETAINED 
                   BY THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Restoration.--Subsection (e) of section 2241 of title 
     28, United States Code, as amended by section 7(a) of the 
     Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), is 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 7 of 
     the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 10. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS 
                   ACT OF 2006.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following 
     rules shall apply to any civil action, including an action 
     for declaratory judgment, that challenges any provision of 
     the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), or 
     any amendment made by that Act, on the ground that such 
     provision or amendment violates the Constitution or the laws 
     of the United States:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard in that 
     Court by a court of three judges convened pursuant to section 
     2284 of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of 
     the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
     in an action under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable as a 
     matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of 
     appeal filed within 10 days after the date on which such 
     judgment, decree, or order is entered. The jurisdictional 
     statement with respect to any such appeal shall be filed 
     within 30 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, 
     or order is entered.
       (3) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the greatest possible extent the disposition of any action or 
     appeal, respectively, brought under this section.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
     October 17, 2006, the date of the enactment of the Military 
     Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), immediately 
     after the enactment of that Act and shall apply to all cases, 
     without exception, that are pending on or after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 4061. A bill to create, adopt, and implement rigorous and 
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics and 
science covering kindergarten through grade 12, to provide for the 
assessment of student proficiency bench marked against such standards, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
   Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Standards to 
Provide Educational Access for Kids (SPEAK) Act. This bill will create, 
adopt, and implement voluntary core American education content 
standards in math and science while incentivizing states to adopt them.
  America's leadership, economic, and national security rest on our 
commitment to educate and prepare our youth to succeed in a global 
economy. The key to succeeding in this endeavor is to have high 
expectations for all American students as they progress through our 
nation's schools.
  Currently there are 50 different sets of academic standards, 50 State 
assessments, and 50 definitions of proficiency under the No Child Left 
Behind Act. As a result of varied standards, exams and proficiency 
levels, America's highly mobile student-aged population moves through 
the nation's schools gaining widely varying levels of knowledge, skills 
and preparedness. And yet, in order for the United States to compete in 
a global economy, we must strengthen our educational expectations for 
all American children--we must compete as one Nation.
  Recent international comparisons show that American students have 
significant shortcomings in math and science. Many lack the basic 
skills required for college or the workplace.

[[Page 22208]]

This affects our economic and national security: It holds us back in 
the global marketplace and risks ceding our competitive edge. This is 
unacceptable.
  America was founded on the notion of ensuring equity in opportunity 
for all. And yet, we risk both when we allow different students in 
different states to graduate from high school with very different 
educations. We live in a Nation with an unacceptably high high school 
dropout rate. We live in a nation where 8th graders in some states 
score more than 30 points higher on tests of basic science knowledge 
than students in other states. I ask my colleagues today what equality 
of opportunity we have under such circumstances.
  This is where American standards come in. Voluntary, core American 
standards in math and science are the first step in ensuring that all 
American students are given the same opportunity to learn to a high 
standard no matter where they reside. They will allow for meaningful 
comparisons of student academic achievement across states, help ensure 
that American students are academically qualified to enter college, or 
training for the civilian or military workforce, and, help ensure that 
students are better prepared to compete in the global marketplace. 
Uniform standards are a first step in maintaining America's competitive 
and national security edge.
  While I realize there will be resistance to such efforts, education 
is after all a state endeavor; we cannot ignore that at the end of the 
day America competes as one country on the global marketplace. This 
does not mean that I am asking States to cede their authority in 
education. What the bill simply proposes is that we the convening power 
of the federal government to develop standards and then provide states 
with incentives to adopt them.
  At the end of the day, this is a voluntary measure. States will 
choose whether or not to participate. States that do participate, while 
required to adopt the American standards, will be given the flexibility 
to make them their own. They will have the option to add additional 
content requirements, they will have final say in how coursework is 
sequenced, and, ultimately, States and districts will still be the ones 
developing the curriculum, choosing the textbooks and administering the 
tests. The standards provided for under this legislation will simply 
serve as a common core.
  Here is what the SPEAK Act will do. It will task the National 
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) with creating rigorous and voluntary 
core American education content standards in math and science for 
grades K-12. It will require that such standards be anchored in the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) math and science 
frameworks. It will ensure that such standards are internationally 
competitive and comparable to the best standards in the world. It will 
develop rigorous achievement levels. It will ensure that varying 
developmental levels of students are taken into account in the 
development of such standards. It will provide for periodic review and 
update of such standards. It will allow participating States the 
flexibility to add additional standards to the core. And, it 
establishes an American standards Incentive Fund to incentivize states 
to adopt the standards. Among the benefits of participating is a huge 
infusion of funds for states to bolster their K-12 data systems.
  What I propose today is a first step. A first step in regaining our 
competitive edge. A first step in ensuring that all American students 
have the opportunity to receive a first class, high-quality, 
competitive education. I am hoping that the bill I introduce today will 
at the very least spark a discussion. A discussion about what it is 
that we want for future generations and how we will set along the path 
to get it to them.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act 
and look forward to resuming the discussion and reintroducing this 
important initiative in the coming Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 4061

       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 ``Standards to Provide 
     Educational Access for Kids Act'' or the ``SPEAK Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Throughout the years, educators and policymakers have 
     consistently embraced standards as the mechanism to ensure 
     that every student, no matter what school the student 
     attends, masters the skills and develops the knowledge needed 
     to participate in a global economy.
       (2) Recent international comparisons make clear that 
     students in the United States have significant shortcomings 
     in mathematics and science, yet a high level of scientific 
     and mathematics literacy is essential to societal innovations 
     and advancements.
       (3) With more than 50 different sets of academic content 
     standards, 50 State academic assessments, and 50 definitions 
     of proficiency under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)), there is 
     great variability in the measures, standards, and benchmarks 
     for academic achievement in mathematics and science.
       (4) Variation in State standards and the accompanying 
     measures of proficiency make it difficult for parents and 
     teachers to meaningfully gauge how well their children are 
     learning mathematics and science in comparison to their peers 
     internationally or here at home.
       (5) The disparity in the rigor of standards across States 
     results in test results that tell the public little about how 
     schools are performing and progressing, as States with low 
     standards or low proficiency scores may appear to be doing 
     much better than States with more rigorous standards or 
     higher requirements for proficiency.
       (6) As a result, the United States' highly mobile student-
     aged population moves through the Nation's schools gaining 
     widely varying levels of knowledge, skills, and preparedness.
       (7) In order for the United States to compete in a global 
     economy, the country needs to strengthen its educational 
     expectations for all children.
       (8) To compete, the people of the United States must 
     compare themselves against international benchmarks.
       (9) Grounded in a real world analysis and international 
     comparisons of what students need to succeed in work and 
     college, rigorous and voluntary core American education 
     content standards will keep the United States economically 
     competitive and ensure that the children of the United States 
     are given the same opportunity to learn to a high standard no 
     matter where they reside.
       (10) Rigorous and voluntary core American education content 
     standards in mathematics and science will enable students to 
     succeed in academic settings across States while ensuring an 
     American edge in the global marketplace.

     SEC. 3. ASSESSING SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF 
                   EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS.

       (a) National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     Authorization Act.--Section 303 of the National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and 
     science'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and 
     science'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``science,'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and 
     science'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting 
     ``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and 
     science''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``, require, or 
     influence'' and inserting ``or require''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``reading and 
     mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting 
     ``reading, mathematics, and science''.
       (b) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--
     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--
       (1) in section 1111(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 6311(c)(2))--
       (A) by inserting ``(and, for science, beginning with the 
     2007-2008 school year)'' after ``2002-2003''; and

[[Page 22209]]

       (B) by striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting 
     ``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
       (2) in section 1112(b)(1)(F) (20 U.S.C. 6312(b)(1)(F)), by 
     striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, 
     mathematics, and science''.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 304 of the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9623) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``In 
     this title:'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise provided, 
     in this title:'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Education.''.

     SEC. 5. VOLUNTARY AMERICAN EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS; 
                   AMERICAN STANDARDS INCENTIVE FUND.

       The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 304 (as amended by section 4) 
     and 305 as sections 306 and 307, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 303 the following:

     ``SEC. 304. CREATION AND ADOPTION OF VOLUNTARY AMERICAN 
                   EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational Access for 
     Kids Act and from amounts appropriated under section 
     307(a)(3) for a fiscal year, the Assessment Board shall 
     create and adopt voluntary American education content 
     standards in mathematics and science covering kindergarten 
     through grade 12.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Assessment Board shall implement 
     subsection (a) by carrying out the following duties:
       ``(1) Create and adopt voluntary American education content 
     standards for mathematics and science covering kindergarten 
     through grade 12 that reflect a common core of what students 
     in the United States should know and be able to do to compete 
     in a global economy.
       ``(2) Anchor the voluntary American education content 
     standards based on the mathematics and science frameworks and 
     the achievement levels under section 303(e) of the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress for grades 4, 8, and 12.
       ``(3) Ensure that the voluntary American education content 
     standards are internationally competitive and comparable to 
     the best standards in the world.
       ``(4) Review State standards in mathematics and science as 
     of the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide 
     Educational Access for Kids Act and consult and work with 
     entities that are developing, or have already developed, such 
     State standards.
       ``(5) Review the reports, views, and analyses of a broad 
     spectrum of experts and the public as such reports, views, 
     and analyses relate to mathematics and science education, 
     including reviews of blue ribbon reports, exemplary practices 
     in the field, and recent reports by government agencies and 
     professional organizations.
       ``(6) Ensure that the voluntary American education content 
     standards reflect the best thinking about the knowledge, 
     skills, and competencies needed for a high degree of 
     scientific and mathematical understanding.
       ``(7) Ensure that varying developmental levels of students 
     are taken into account in the development of the voluntary 
     American education content standards.
       ``(8) Ensure that the voluntary American education content 
     standards reflect what students will be required to know and 
     be able to do after secondary school graduation to be 
     academically qualified to enter an institution of higher 
     education or training for the civilian or military workforce.
       ``(9) Widely disseminate the voluntary American education 
     content standards for public review and comment before final 
     adoption.
       ``(10) Provide for continuing review of the voluntary 
     American education content standards not less often than once 
     every 10 years, which review--
       ``(A) shall solicit input from outside organizations and 
     entities, including--
       ``(i) 1 or more professional mathematics or science 
     organizations;
       ``(ii) the State educational agencies that have received 
     American Standards Incentive Fund grants under section 305 
     during the period covered by the review; and
       ``(iii) other organizations and entities, as determined 
     appropriate by Assessment Board; and
       ``(B) shall address issues including--
       ``(i) whether the voluntary American education content 
     standards continue to reflect international standards of 
     excellence and the latest developments in the fields of 
     mathematics and science; and
       ``(ii) whether the voluntary American education content 
     standards continue to reflect what students are required to 
     know and be able to do in science and mathematics after 
     graduation from secondary school to be academically qualified 
     to enter an institution of higher education or training for 
     the civilian or military workforce, as of the date of the 
     review.

     ``SEC. 305. THE AMERICAN STANDARDS INCENTIVE FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment of Fund.--From amounts appropriated 
     under section 307(a)(4) for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall establish and fund the American Standards Incentive 
     fund to carry out the grant program under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Incentive Grant Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the 
     Assessment Board adopts the voluntary American education 
     content standards under section 304, the Secretary shall use 
     amounts available from the American Standards Incentive fund 
     to award, on a competitive basis, grants to State educational 
     agencies to enable each State educational agency to adopt the 
     voluntary American education content standards in mathematics 
     and science as the core of the State's academic content 
     standards in mathematics and science by carrying out the 
     activities described in subsection (e).
       ``(2) Duration and amount.--A grant under this subsection 
     shall be awarded--
       ``(A) for a period of not more than 4 years; and
       ``(B) in an amount that is not more than $4,000,000 over 
     the period of the grant.
       ``(c) Core Standards.--A State educational agency receiving 
     a grant under subsection (b) shall adopt and use the 
     voluntary American education content standards in mathematics 
     and science as the core of the State academic content 
     standards in mathematics and science. The State educational 
     agency may add additional standards to the voluntary American 
     education content standards as part of the State academic 
     content standards in mathematics and science.
       ``(d) State Application.--A State educational agency 
     desiring to receive a grant under subsection (b) shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
     The application shall include--
       ``(1) timelines for carrying out each of the activities 
     described in subsection (e)(1); and
       ``(2) a description of the activities that the State 
     educational agency will undertake to implement the voluntary 
     American education content standards in mathematics and 
     science adopted under section 304, and the achievement levels 
     in mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for 
     the national and State assessments of the National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress, at both the State educational agency 
     and local educational agency levels, including any additional 
     activities described in subsection (e)(2).
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Mandatory activities.--A State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under subsection (b) shall use grant funds 
     to carry out all of the following:
       ``(A) Adopt the voluntary American education content 
     standards in mathematics and science as the core of the 
     State's academic content standards in mathematics and science 
     not later than 2 years after the receipt of a grant under 
     this section.
       ``(B) Align the teacher certification or licensure, pre-
     service, and professional development requirements of the 
     State to the voluntary American education content standards 
     in mathematics and science not later than 3 years after the 
     receipt of the grant.
       ``(C) Align the State academic assessments in mathematics 
     and science (or develop new such State academic assessments 
     that are aligned) with the voluntary American education 
     content standards in mathematics and science not later than 4 
     years after the receipt of the grant.
       ``(D) Align the State levels of achievement in mathematics 
     and science with the student achievement levels in 
     mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for 
     the national and State assessments of the National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress.
       ``(2) Permissive activities.--A State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under subsection (b) may use the grant 
     funds to carry out, at the local educational agency or State 
     educational agency level, any of the following activities:
       ``(A) Train teachers and administrators on how to 
     incorporate the voluntary American education content 
     standards in mathematics and science into classroom 
     instruction.
       ``(B) Develop curricula and instructional materials in 
     mathematics or science that are aligned with the voluntary 
     American education content standards in mathematics and 
     science.
       ``(C) Develop performance standards in mathematics or 
     science to accompany the voluntary American education content 
     standards in mathematics and science.
       ``(D) Conduct other activities needed for the 
     implementation of the voluntary American education content 
     standards in mathematics and science.
       ``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section the 
     Secretary shall give priority to a State educational agency 
     that will use the grant funds to carry out all of the 
     activities described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of 
     paragraph (2).

[[Page 22210]]

       ``(f) Award Basis.--In determining the amount of a grant 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(1) the extent to which a State's academic content 
     standards, State academic assessments, levels of achievement 
     in mathematics and science, and teacher certification or 
     licensure, pre-service, and professional development 
     requirements, must be revised to align such State standards, 
     assessments, levels, and teacher requirements with the 
     voluntary American education content standards adopted under 
     section 304 and the achievement levels in mathematics and 
     science developed under section 303(e); and
       ``(2) the planned activities described in the application 
     submitted under subsection (d).
       ``(g) Annual State Educational Agency Reports.--A State 
     educational agency receiving a grant under subsection (b) 
     shall submit an annual report to the Secretary demonstrating 
     the State educational agency's progress in meeting the 
     timelines described in the application under subsection 
     (d)(1).
       ``(h) Grants for DoD and BIA Schools.--
       ``(1) Department of defense schools.--From amounts 
     available from the American Standards Incentive fund, the 
     Secretary, upon application by the Secretary of Defense, may 
     award grants under subsection (b) to the Secretary of Defense 
     on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools 
     operated by the Department of Defense to enable the 
     elementary schools and secondary schools to carry out the 
     activities described in subsection (e).
       ``(2) Bureau of indian affairs schools.--From amounts 
     available from the American Standards Incentive fund, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior, 
     may award grants under subsection (b) to the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools 
     operated or funded by the Department of the Interior to 
     enable the elementary schools and secondary schools to carry 
     out the activities described in subsection (e).
       ``(i) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the completion 
     of the first 4-year grant cycle for grants under this 
     section, the Commissioner for Education Statistics shall 
     carry out a study comparing the gap between the reported 
     proficiency on State academic assessments and assessments 
     under section 303 for State educational agencies receiving 
     grants under subsection (b), before and after the State 
     adopts the voluntary American education content standards in 
     mathematics and science as the core of the State education 
     content standards in mathematics and science.
       ``(j) Data Grant.--
       ``(1) Program authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     section 305(a)(4), the Secretary shall award, to each State 
     educational agency that meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (3), a grant to be used to enhance State data systems as such 
     systems relate to the requirements under part A of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(2) Amount of grant.--A grant awarded to a State 
     educational agency under this subsection shall be in an 
     amount equal to 5 percent of the amount allocated to the 
     State under section 1122 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6332). If the amounts 
     available from the American Standards Incentive fund are 
     insufficient to pay the full amounts of grants under 
     paragraph (1) to all State educational agencies, the 
     Secretary shall ratably reduce the amount of all grants under 
     this subsection.
       ``(3) Requirements.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     subsection, a State educational agency shall--
       ``(A) have received a grant under subsection (b); and
       ``(B) successfully demonstrate to the Secretary that the 
     State has aligned--
       ``(i) the State's academic content standards and State 
     academic assessments in mathematics and science, and the 
     State's teacher certification or licensure, pre-service, and 
     professional development requirements, with the voluntary 
     American education content standards in mathematics and 
     science; and
       ``(ii) the State levels of achievement in mathematics and 
     science for grades 4, 8, and 12, with the achievement levels 
     in mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for 
     such grades.
       ``(4) Nature of grant.--A grant under this subsection to a 
     State educational agency shall be in addition to any grant 
     awarded to the State educational agency under subsection (b).
       ``(5) Limit on number of grants.--In no case shall a State 
     educational agency receive more than 1 grant under this 
     subsection.
       ``(k) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational 
     Access for Kids Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the status of 
     all grants awarded under this section.
       ``(l) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to establish a preferred national curriculum or 
     preferred teaching methodology for elementary school or 
     secondary school instruction.
       ``(m) Timeline Extension.--The Secretary may extend the 12-
     year requirement under section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(2)(F)) by not more than 4 years for a State served by 
     a State educational agency that receives a grant under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(n) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) In general.--The terms `elementary school', `local 
     educational agency', `professional development', `secondary 
     school', `State', and `State educational agency' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       ``(2) Academic content standards.--The term `academic 
     content standards' means the challenging academic content 
     standards described in section 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1)).
       ``(3) Levels of achievement.--The term `levels of 
     achievement' means the State levels of achievement under 
     subclauses (II) and (III) of section 1111(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II), (III)).
       ``(4) State academic assessments.--The term `State academic 
     assessments' means the academic assessments for a State 
     described in section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 307(a) of the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress Authorization Act (as redesignated by section 5(1)) 
     (20 U.S.C. 9624(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated--
       ``(1) to carry out section 302, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding 
     fiscal year;
       ``(2) to carry out section 303, $200,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     succeeding fiscal year;
       ``(3) to carry out section 304, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(4) to carry out section 305, $400,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     succeeding fiscal year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 4062. A bill to freeze non-defense discretionary spending at 
fiscal year 2007 levels effective in fiscal year 2008; to the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an 
area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties 
profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear 
individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I 
usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some 
discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the 
other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we 
actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere 
words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have 
confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually 
held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the 
rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's 
non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the 
rate of inflation.
  Again, we are faced with the same task.
  The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed 
to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we 
must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary 
spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator 
Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant 
manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut 
spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need 
to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . . 
[be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we 
must hold down discretionary spending.
  Well, let's hold down discretionary spending.
  I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this 
bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly 
all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it 
twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are 
promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 
and

[[Page 22211]]

thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending 
shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds 
vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending.
  It is very simple, cut and dried, something that can pass. I hope 
those individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will 
recognize this is something that is doable.
  I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent 
budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages 
long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and 
program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on 
total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put, 
the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can 
control discretionary spending.
  I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of 
government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I 
have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills, 
but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this 
year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single 
time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other 
side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a 
debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for 
fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the 
need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal restraint. I guess 
for some, it truly is much easier said than done.
  So, I am offering it again.
  I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act 
of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year 
2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary 
spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a 
two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in 
holding down spending.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4062

       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 ``Fiscal Responsibility Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Enforcement.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(g) Excess Non-Defense Discretionary Federal Spending 
     Reduction Point of Order.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or 
     resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference report on 
     that bill or resolution) that would cause spending for non-
     defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending for the 
     budget year to exceed the amount of spending for such 
     activities in fiscal year 2007.
       ``(2) Allocations.--The allocations under section 302(a) 
     shall include allocations for the amount described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Super majority waiver or appeal.--This subsection may 
     be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative 
     vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, 
     duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to 
     sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 
     order raised under this subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning 
     with fiscal year 2008.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 4063. A bill to provide for additional section 8 vouchers, to 
reauthorize the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Affordable 
Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing 
affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around 
the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and 
affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and 
federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also 
providing over $3 billion in deficit reduction.
  Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability 
challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing 
affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters 
throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and 
secure housing is about more than just providing families with 
somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children 
with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve 
at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows 
families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities 
including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save 
money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites 
around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable 
housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that 
families have to undertake in order to afford housing.
  Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more, 
available in the United States. Research shows that the number of 
families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million 
households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families 
spends more than 30 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The 
National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 
Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million 
Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, 
towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack 
of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that 
confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. 
Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of 
Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance 
to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe 
and affordable housing.
  Congress has created effective affordable housing and community 
development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal 
social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do 
not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we 
can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into 
account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.
  The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 
1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's 
budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized. 
Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the 
demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of 
Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list 
for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for 24 hours and 
received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not 
accepted new applications for Section 8 in over three years and reports 
that hundreds of families are on the waiting list.
  Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country. 
According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness 
Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in 
Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and 
currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its 
waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its 
waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical 
waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given 
these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8 
vouchers than currently exist.
  While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to 
be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government 
agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of 
Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their 
housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined 
that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section

[[Page 22212]]

8 program costs less than it would through other federal housing 
programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission 
reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost-
effective, and successful in its mission.''
  The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to 
be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters 
access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also 
called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for 
families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the 
calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for 
100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually 
by Congress.
  My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000 
incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2007. I have identified enough 
funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000 
vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the 
total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it 
is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were 
passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of 
these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine 
where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide 
sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers 
have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to 
four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it 
will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to 
find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased 
funding for Section 8 vouchers.
  We should examine doing more than just providing more money for 
Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of 
Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging 
from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to 
rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens 
landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program. 
Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula 
the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to 
address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more 
effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the 
country.
  But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the 
housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to 
increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our 
communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable 
to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments 
Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990 
to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing 
for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows 
participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new 
production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 
HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other 
existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low 
income Americans throughout the country.
  According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23 
billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating 
jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units 
committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports 
that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in 
my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and 
have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and 
States around the country are able to report numerous success stories 
in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to 
participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial 
Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and 
recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.
  Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has 
seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9 
billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than 
$1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating 
jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some 
jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to 
ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we 
must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in 
need.
  But Mr. President, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs 
to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation 
seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by 
using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating 
jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating 
jurisdictions use these set-aside dollars to produce, rehab, or 
preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or 
people at 30 percent of area median income or below.
  As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe 
affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data 
from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low 
income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues 
while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with 
affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low 
income owner households are severely burdened by affordability 
concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with 
severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families 
and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half 
of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing 
Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in 
America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income 
renter households and the number of units available to them with 
acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted 
that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or 
production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.
  Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe 
and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area 
median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of 
the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard 
from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective 
housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is 
why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program; 
local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of 
the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary 
and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.
  Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding 
under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the 
needs of the extremely low income families in their respective 
communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this 
funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on 
how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are 
intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating 
jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that 
the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding 
for extremely low income households in no way excuses such 
jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve 
extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding 
will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to 
dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing 
for the most vulnerable Americans.
  My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant 
program: the

[[Page 22213]]

Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program, 
formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program has not 
been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired in 
2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which 
provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing 
authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200 
million per year for five years for this program.
  After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics 
indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across 
the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime 
increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest, 
violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing 
authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the 
effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their 
resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with 
funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related 
crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their 
tenants.
  Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug 
Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long 
enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator 
Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing 
and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded 
numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the 
country.
  In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important 
programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of 
Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day 
to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work 
collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the 
Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public 
safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year, 
dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and 
other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing 
Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the 
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies, 
providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of 
educational, job training and life skill programs.
  When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002 
budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures 
should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised 
an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP 
funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to 
continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in 
the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can 
be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee--
have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of 
their crime reduction programs.
  It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants. 
Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide 
housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing 
entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.
  But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with 
grant money. The Federal government also needs to provide more 
resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most 
effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains 
several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program. 
It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) 
to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and 
issue a report within six months identifying effective programs, 
providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require 
PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to 
develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation 
of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant 
program that have not previously been subject to that type of 
evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of 
information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require 
HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns 
from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most 
effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted 
housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related 
guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving 
the effectiveness of the program going forward.
  As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use 
of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on 
their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program 
was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can 
be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used 
inappropriately.
  My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on 
Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the 
outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry, 
Senator Reed, and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a 
National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with 
them and others in the 110th to push for the creation of such a trust 
fund.
  I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the 
goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next 
10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect 
the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and 
very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local 
communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing 
units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters 
the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.
  Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and 
states throughout the country, including recently in the city of 
Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for 
working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces 
and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help 
Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe 
and affordable housing to all Americans.
  This bill is the third of four proposals I am introducing this year 
to address some of the domestic issues that have been raised with me 
over the years by my constituents, some of them at the listening 
sessions I hold annually in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Previous 
proposals addressed health care reform and the trade deficit.
  This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our 
most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, 
unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are 
struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. 
This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that 
communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This 
issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head, 
however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs, 
better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans. 
Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work 
together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all 
Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the next Congress to advance my bill and 
other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the goal of 
affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page 22214]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4063

       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 ``Affordable Housing Expansion 
     and Public Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 VOUCHERS.

       (a) In General.--In fiscal year 2007 and subject to 
     renewal, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     provide an additional 100,000 incremental vouchers for 
     tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 8(o) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $8,400,000,000 for the provision and renewal of the vouchers 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain available until expended.
       (3) Carryover.--To the extent that any amounts appropriated 
     for any fiscal are not expended by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development in such fiscal year for purposes of 
     subsection (a), any remaining amounts shall be carried 
     forward for use by the Secretary to renew the vouchers 
     described in subsection (a) in subsequent years.
       (c) Distribution of Amounts.--
       (1) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may not use more 
     than $800,000,000 of the amounts authorized under paragraph 
     (1) to cover the administrative costs associated with the 
     provision and renewal of the vouchers described in subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Voucher costs.--The Secretary shall use all remaining 
     amounts authorized under paragraph (1) to cover the costs of 
     providing and renewing the vouchers described in subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 3. TARGETED EXPANSION OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP 
                   (HOME) PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are as follows:
       (1) To authorize additional funding under subtitle A of 
     title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12741 et seq.), commonly referred to as the 
     Home Investments Partnership (``HOME'') program, to provide 
     dedicated funding for the expansion and preservation of 
     housing for extremely low-income individuals and families 
     through eligible uses of investment as defined in paragraphs 
     (1) and (3) of section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act.
       (2) Such additional funding is intended to supplement the 
     HOME funds already allocated to a participating jurisdiction 
     to provide additional assistance in targeting resources to 
     extremely low-income individuals and families.
       (3) Such additional funding is not intended to be the only 
     source of assistance for extremely low-income individuals and 
     families under the HOME program, and participating 
     jurisdictions shall continue to use non-set aside HOME funds 
     to provide assistance to such extremely low-income 
     individuals and families.
       (b) Set Aside for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and 
     Families.--
       (1) Eligible use.--Section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Extremely low-income individuals and families.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall 
     use funds provided under this subtitle to provide affordable 
     housing to individuals and families whose incomes do not 
     exceed 30 percent of median family income for that 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(B) Exception.--If a participating jurisdiction can 
     certify to the Secretary that such participating jurisdiction 
     has met in its jurisdiction the housing needs of extremely 
     low-income individuals and families described in subparagraph 
     (A), such participating jurisdiction may use any remaining 
     funds provided under this subtitle for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A) to provide affordable housing to individuals 
     and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of median 
     family income for that jurisdiction.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--The Secretary shall notify 
     each participating jurisdiction receiving funds for purposes 
     of this paragraph that use of such funds, as required under 
     subparagraph (A), does not exempt or prevent that 
     participating jurisdiction from using any other funds awarded 
     under this subtitle to provide affordable housing to 
     extremely low-income individuals and families.
       ``(D) Rental housing.--Notwithstanding section 215(a), 
     housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable 
     housing under this paragraph only if such housing is occupied 
     by extremely low-income individuals or families who pay as a 
     contribution toward rent (excluding any Federal or State 
     rental subsidy provided on behalf of the individual or 
     family) not more than 30 percent of the monthly adjusted 
     income of such individual or family, as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (2) Pro rata distribution.--Section 217 of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12747) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Pro Rata Distribution for Extremely Low-Income 
     Individuals and Families.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, in any fiscal year the Secretary shall 
     allocate any funds specifically approved in an appropriations 
     Act to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income 
     individuals or families under section 212(a)(6), such funds 
     shall be allocated to each participating jurisdiction in an 
     amount which bears the same ratio to such amount as the 
     amount such participating jurisdiction receives for such 
     fiscal year under this subtitle, not including any amounts 
     allocated for any additional set-asides specified in such 
     appropriations Act for that fiscal year.''.
       (3) Certification.--Section 226 of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12756) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall 
     certify on annual basis to the Secretary that any funds used 
     to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income 
     individuals or families under section 212(a)(6) were actually 
     used to assist such families.
       ``(2) Content of certification.--Each certification 
     required under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) state the number of extremely low-income individuals 
     and families assisted in the previous 12 months;
       ``(B) separate such extremely low-income individuals and 
     families into those individuals and families who were 
     assisted by--
       ``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and 
     families under section 212(a)(6); and
       ``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle; and
       ``(C) describe the type of activities, including new 
     construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing, 
     provided to such extremely low-income individuals and 
     families that were supported by--
       ``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and 
     families under section 212(a)(6); and
       ``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle.
       ``(3) Inclusion with performance report.--The certification 
     required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the 
     jurisdiction's annual performance report submitted to the 
     Secretary under section 108(a) and made available to the 
     public.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     other amounts authorized to be appropriated under any other 
     law or appropriations Act to carry out the provisions of 
     title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12701 et. seq), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section 
     $400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG 
                   ELIMINATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Title Change.--The chapter heading of chapter 2 of 
     subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 
     U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

  ``CHAPTER 2--PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG ELIMINATION 
                               PROGRAM''.

       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Amounts authorized.--Section 5129(a) of the Anti-Drug 
     Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11908(a)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this chapter $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.''.
       (2) Set aside for the office of policy development and 
     research.--Section 5129 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 
     (42 U.S.C. 11908) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Set Aside for the Office of Policy Development and 
     Research.--Of any amounts made available in any fiscal year 
     to carry out this chapter not less than 2 percent shall be 
     available to the Office of Policy Development and Research to 
     carry out the functions required under section 5130.''.
       (c) Eligible Activities.--Section 5124(a)(6) of the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6)) is amended by 
     striking the semicolon and inserting the following: ``, 
     except that the activities conducted under any such program 
     and paid for, in whole or in part, with grant funds awarded 
     under this chapter may only include--
       ``(A) providing access to treatment for drug abuse through 
     rehabilitation or relapse prevention;
       ``(B) providing education about the dangers and adverse 
     consequences of drug use or violent crime;
       ``(C) assisting drug users in discontinuing their drug use 
     through an education program, and, if appropriate, referring 
     such users to a drug treatment program;
       ``(D) providing after school activities for youths for the 
     purpose of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or 
     violent crime by youths;
       ``(E) providing capital improvements for the purpose of 
     discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent 
     crime; and
       ``(F) providing security services for the purpose of 
     discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent 
     crime.''.

[[Page 22215]]

       (d) Effectiveness.--
       (1) Application plan.--Section 5125(a) of the Anti-Drug 
     Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``To the maximum extent feasible, 
     each plan submitted under this section shall be developed in 
     coordination with relevant local law enforcement agencies and 
     other local entities involved in crime prevention and 
     reduction. Such plan also shall include an agreement to work 
     cooperatively with the Office of Policy Development and 
     Research in its efforts to carry out the functions required 
     under section 5130.''
       (2)  HUD report.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Effectiveness Report.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Congress not later than 4 years after the date 
     of the enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and 
     Public Safety Act that includes--
       ``(1) aggregate data regarding the categories of program 
     activities that have been funded by grants under this 
     chapter;
       ``(2) promising strategies related to preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and 
     federally assisted low-income housing derived from--
       ``(A) a review of existing research; and
       ``(B) evaluations of programs funded by grants under this 
     chapter that were conducted by the Office of Policy 
     Development and Review or by the grantees themselves;
       ``(3) how the information gathered in paragraph (2) has 
     been incorporated into--
       ``(A) the guidance provided to applicants under this 
     chapter; and
       ``(B) the implementing regulations under this chapter; and
       ``(4) any statutory changes that the Secretary would 
     recommend to help make grants awarded under this chapter more 
     effective.''.
       (3) Office of policy development and research review and 
     plan.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug 
     Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 5130. OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH REVIEW 
                   AND PLAN.

       ``(a) Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office of Policy Development and 
     Research established pursuant to section 501 of the Housing 
     and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1) shall 
     conduct a review of existing research relating to preventing 
     and reducing violent and drug-related crime to assess, using 
     scientifically rigorous and acceptable methods, which 
     strategies--
       ``(A) have been found to be effective in preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crimes; and
       ``(B) would be likely to be effective in preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crimes in public and 
     federally assisted low-income housing environments.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public 
     Safety Act, the Secretary shall issue a written report with 
     the results of the review required under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Evaluation Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon completion of the review required 
     under subsection (a)(1), the Office of Policy Development and 
     Research, in consultation with housing authorities, social 
     scientists, and other interested parties, shall develop and 
     implement a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of 
     strategies funded under this chapter, including new and 
     innovative strategies and existing strategies, that have not 
     previously been subject to rigorous evaluation methodologies.
       ``(2) Methodology.--The plan described in paragraph (1) 
     shall require such evaluations to use rigorous methodologies, 
     particularly random assignment (where practicable), that are 
     capable of producing scientifically valid knowledge regarding 
     which program activities are effective in preventing and 
     reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and other 
     federally assisted low-income housing.''.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A 
                   NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Only 1 in 4 eligible households receives Federal rental 
     assistance.
       (2) The number of families facing severe housing cost 
     burdens grew by almost 2,000,0000 households between 2001 and 
     2004.
       (3) 1 in 3 families spend more than 30 percent of their 
     earnings on housing costs.
       (4) More than 75 percent of renter households with severe 
     housing affordability burdens are extremely low-income 
     families.
       (5) More than half of extremely low-income households pay 
     at least half of their income on housing.
       (6) At least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day.
       (7) 2,000,000 to 3,000,0000 Americans are homeless for 
     various lengths of time each year.
       (8) It is estimated that the development of an average 
     housing unit creates on average more than 3 jobs and the 
     development of an average multifamily unit creates on average 
     more than 1 job.
       (9) It is estimated that over $80,000 is produced in 
     government revenue for an average single family unit built 
     and over $30,000 is produced in government revenue for an 
     average multifamily unit built.
       (10) The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission stated 
     that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the 
     mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter 
     households and the number of units available to them with 
     acceptable quality and affordable rents.''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Congress shall create a national affordable housing 
     trust fund with the purpose of supplying 1,500,000 additional 
     affordable housing units over the next 10 years;
       (2) such a trust fund shall contain sufficient income 
     targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced 
     by extremely low-income and very low-income families; and
       (3) such a trust fund shall contain enough flexibility to 
     allow local communities to produce, preserve, and 
     rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that 
     such affordable housing development fosters the creation of 
     healthy and sustainable communities.

     SEC. 6. OFFSETS.

       (a) Repeal of Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A 
     Raptor Fighter Aircraft.--Effective as of October 17, 2006, 
     section 134 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), relating to 
     multiyear procurement authority for F-22A Raptor fighter 
     aircraft, is repealed.
       (b) Advanced Research for Fossil Fuels.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy shall not 
     carry out any program that conducts, or provides assistance 
     for, applied research for fossil fuels.
       (c) Termination of Advanced Technology Program.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Commerce may not award any new grants under the Advanced 
     Technology Program, provided for under section 28 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     278n), effective October 1, 2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO:
  S. 4064. A bill to improve the amendments made by the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Improving No Child 
Left Behind--INCLB--Act. As a father and a legislator, I am committed 
to advocating for public education in Idaho and throughout the Nation. 
Ensuring that every child receives a good education is one of my top 
priorities. President Bush's sweeping education reforms included in the 
No Child Left Behind Act have had measurable positive effects on many 
students across the country, and I support the law's objective of 
ensuring that every child achieves his or her potential.
  However, given time to observe the implementation of the law, it is 
now appropriate to review opportunities for needed improvements to the 
underlying program. After conferring with a number of organizations in 
Idaho and at the national level, I have identified implementation 
concerns that seem common to various stakeholder groups. In response, I 
have created the Improving No Child Left Behind Act. This bill contains 
a number of workable, commonsense modifications to the law. These 
provisions preserve the major focus on student achievement and 
accountability and, at the same time, ensure that schools and school 
districts are accurately and fairly assessed. The act ensures that 
local schools and districts have more flexibility and control in 
educating our Nation's children. The goal of the act is expressed in 
its name: to improve No Child Left Behind.
  The bill does a number of things: INCLB would allow supplemental 
services like tutoring to be offered to students sooner than they are 
currently available; INCLB would provide flexibility for States to use 
additional types of assessment models for measuring student progress; 
INCLB grants States more flexibility in assessing students with 
disabilities; INCLB would ensure more fair and accurate assessments of 
Limited English Proficiency--LEP--students; INCLB would create a 
student testing participation range, providing flexibility for 
uncontrollable variations in student attendance; INCLB would allow 
schools to target resources to those student populations who need the 
most attention by applying sanctions only when the same student group 
fails to make adequate progress in the same subject for two consecutive 
years; and INCLB would

[[Page 22216]]

ensure that students are counted properly and accurately in assessment 
and reporting systems.
  Taken together, these provisions reflect a realistic assessment of 
both the strengths and weaknesses of No Child Left Behind. While there 
may be many issues that divide us, our responsibility in education is 
clear. We must promote successful, meaningful public education for our 
children. The INCLB Act will ensure that INCLB continues to be an 
avenue to success for educators and students throughout Idaho and the 
Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 4065. A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on 
the feasibility of collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of 
school-related crime in elementary schools and secondary schools; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Accurate 
Crime Trends for School Act, a bill that is critical in protecting our 
children from crimes within their schools.
  Each day, parents send their children off to school with a sense of 
security that they are spending their day in a classroom free from 
danger. The latest outbreaks of school violence and crimes are a clear 
reminder that this is not always the case. While the majority of our 
schools are safe, some parents send their children off to school only 
to find that their child has become the victim of a crime.
  The No Child Left Behind Act requires States and local educational 
agencies to publicly report criminal activity in our schools, based on 
their own reports and best-guess surveys. However, there is no Federal 
crime reporting and tracking system for K-12 schools in the United 
States.
  I strongly believe that accurate data on the crimes occurring in our 
schools will help us develop preventative measures and effectively 
address crimes occurring in our nation's classrooms.
  My bill, the Accurate Crime Trends (``ACT'') for Schools Act, directs 
the Attorney General, in consultation with the FBI and the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, to determine the 
feasibility of expanding the National Incidents Based Reporting System 
(``NIBRS'') to include information on K-12 school-related crime. NIBRS 
is the FBI's comprehensive, detailed crime reporting system. It 
provides a greater capability of reporting the details of crimes than 
self-reporting or surveys do.
  I want it to be clear that expanding NIBRS would not create a new 
level of bureaucracy. This bill would neither bring the FBI into our 
schools, nor place any new requirements or new burdens upon educators. 
Expanding NIBRS would use existing crime reporting infrastructures to 
collect specific K-12 crime data, allowing us to improve the safety of 
our kids in school.
  This year The Office of the New York State Comptroller released a 
study that underscored the need for such legislation. The report showed 
that at schools sampled, 80 percent of documented incidents of crimes 
went unreported to the State, with a number of these instances being 
serious crimes. This is the type of information that we need that we 
are not currently getting.
  As a parent, I truly believe it is imperative to be made aware of any 
crime that takes place in our children's schools. Our parents, 
educators, and children need and deserve a sense of comfort and 
security from their schools. When we have accurate data on what is 
occurring in our school, we will be able to develop effective policies 
to make sure our schools are safe. This bill is a critical first step 
in achieving this goal.
  The infrastructure for collecting this data is already in place. All 
we have to do is determine the best way to utilize it. The Accurate 
Crime Trends for Schools Act will accomplish just that.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4065

       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 ``Accurate Crime Trends for 
     Schools Act'' or the ``ACT for Schools Act''.

     SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General shall, after consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the International Association of Chiefs of Police, conduct a 
     study to determine the feasibility of expanding the National 
     Incident-Based Reporting System to include information on the 
     occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools and 
     secondary schools. Such study shall include the 
     identification and evaluation of methods that may be used to 
     collect and report such information.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a) to the appropriate committees of Congress.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary 
     school'' and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 2, $250,000 for fiscal year 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Byrd, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Pryor, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 4067. A bill to provide for secondary transmissions of distant 
network signals for private home viewing by certain satellite carriers; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators 
Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, and Byrd, Pryor, Enzi, and Clinton 
are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret 
the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect 
consumers--especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont.
  This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that 
soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV 
services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major 
corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help 
corporations, but to help home satellite viewers.
  A Federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly 
and repeatedly violated Federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should 
be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is 
ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this: 
EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did 
not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the 
penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit 
had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any 
distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will 
suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the 
country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the 
free, over-the-air broadcast networks.
  The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and--
most importantly--pro-consumer solution to a problem of Echo Star's 
creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1, 
will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to 
any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the 
injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where 
EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our 
legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network 
stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not 
available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant 
network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas 
that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring 
in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no

[[Page 22217]]

local station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring 
localities that are considered ``significantly viewed'' by the Federal 
Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations, 
could be carried.
  This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement 
provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally 
providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act 
therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and 
requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright 
office to cover any future violations.
  This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of 
broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it 
serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and 
the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying 
for these services.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4067

       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 ``Satellite Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: SECONDARY 
                   TRANSMISSIONS OF DISTANT NETWORK SIGNALS FOR 
                   PRIVATE HOME VIEWING BY CERTAIN SATELLITE 
                   CARRIERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 119 the following:

     ``Sec. 119A. Limitations on exclusive rights: secondary 
       transmissions of distant network signals for private home 
       viewing by certain satellite carriers

       ``(a) Statutory License Granted.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any injunction issued 
     under section 119(a)(7)(B), a satellite carrier found to have 
     engaged in a pattern or practice of violations pursuant to 
     section 119(a)(7)(B) is granted a statutory license to 
     provide a secondary transmission of a performance or display 
     of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a 
     network station in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(2) Significantly viewed signals.--Under the statutory 
     license granted by paragraph (1), a satellite carrier may 
     provide a secondary transmission of a primary transmission 
     made by a network station as provided in paragraph (2)(C) or 
     (3) of section 119(a).
       ``(3) Distant signals.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under the statutory license granted by 
     paragraph (1), a satellite carrier may provide a secondary 
     transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied 
     in a primary transmission made by a network station, subject 
     to the limitations of subparagraphs (B) and (C), of not more 
     than 1 network station in a single day for each television 
     network.
       ``(B) Non-local-into-local markets.--A satellite carrier 
     may provide a secondary transmission under subparagraph (A) 
     in a local market (as defined in section 122(j)) in which a 
     satellite carrier does not currently provide, and has not 
     ever provided, a transmission pursuant to a statutory license 
     under section 122, if the satellite carrier--
       ``(i) complies with the terms and conditions for a 
     statutory license under section 119; and
       ``(ii) certifies to the Copyright Office within 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Satellite Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2006, or before initiating service to a 
     subscriber under this section, whichever is later, that all 
     subscribers receiving secondary transmissions pursuant to a 
     statutory license under this section in that local market 
     reside in unserved households, as determined under section 
     119(a)(2)(B)(ii); and
       ``(iii) deposits, in addition to the deposits required by 
     section 119(b)(1), a duplicate payment with the Register of 
     Copyrights in the same amount for each network station in the 
     local market affiliated with the same network as the network 
     station being imported.
       ``(C) Short markets.--In a local market (as defined in 
     section 122(j)) in which a network station (as defined in 
     section 119(d)) affiliated with the ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox 
     television network is not licensed by the Federal 
     Communications Commission, a satellite carrier may provide 
     secondary transmission under subparagraph (A) of the primary 
     signals of a network station affiliated with that network, if 
     the satellite carrier--
       ``(i) complies with the terms and conditions for a 
     statutory license under section 119; and
       ``(ii) certifies to the Copyright Office within 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Satellite Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2006, or before initiating service to a 
     subscriber under this section, whichever is later, that all 
     subscribers receiving secondary transmissions pursuant to a 
     statutory license under this section in that local market 
     reside in unserved households, as determined under section 
     119(a)(2)(B)(ii).
       ``(D) Short market exception.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), a 
     satellite carrier may not provide secondary transmission of 
     the primary signals of a network station under that 
     subparagraph if secondary transmission of those signals could 
     be provided under paragraph (2).
       ``(ii) Discontinuance of secondary transmission when 
     primary signal becomes available.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (C), a satellite carrier that has been providing 
     secondary transmission of the primary signals of a network 
     station under subparagraph (C) in a local market may not 
     provide such secondary transmission in that local market more 
     than 30 days after the date on which a network station 
     affiliated with the same network begins to broadcast or 
     rebroadcast the basic programming service of that network in 
     that local market and could be carried pursuant to a license 
     under section 122.
       ``(b) Distribution of Duplicate Deposit Amounts.--The 
     Copyright Royalty Judges shall authorize the Librarian of 
     Congress to distribute semiannually amounts received by the 
     Register of Copyrights as deposits under subsection 
     (a)(3)(B)(iii), after deducting the reasonable costs incurred 
     by the Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Judges 
     under this section, in accordance with a process that the 
     Copyright Royalty Judges may prescribe by regulation, to a 
     network station (as defined in section 119(d)(2)) affiliated 
     with the network whose signals are being carried under this 
     section to a community within the local market (as defined in 
     section 122(j)) in which such signals are being provided 
     under this section.
       ``(c) Statutory Damages.--
       ``(1) In general.--The violation by a satellite carrier of 
     subsection (a) is actionable as an act of infringement under 
     section 501 and is subject to statutory damages equal to $100 
     per month multiplied by the number of subscribers with 
     respect to which the violation was committed for each month 
     during which the violation was committed (treating each month 
     of a continuing violation as a separate violation).
       ``(2) Petition.--A petition for statutory damages may be 
     made to the Copyright Royalty Judges, pursuant to such rules 
     as may be prescribed by the Copyright Royalty Judges by 
     regulation. In any proceeding under this section, the 
     satellite carrier shall have the burden of proving that its 
     secondary transmission of a primary transmission by a network 
     station is to a subscriber who is eligible to receive the 
     secondary transmission under this section.
       ``(3) Escrow.--As a condition of using the statutory 
     license under subsection (a), a satellite carrier must 
     deposit the sum of $20,000,000 in escrow with the Copyright 
     Office. The Copyright Office shall deposit the escrow funds 
     in an account in the Treasury of the United States, in such 
     manner as the Secretary of the Treasury directs, and invested 
     in interest-bearing securities of the United States with any 
     interest from such investment to be credited to the account. 
     The Copyright Royalty Judges shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction to determine liability for and entitlement to 
     the statutory damages owed to the petitioning party in 
     accordance with a process to be prescribed by regulation and 
     they shall authorize the Librarian of Congress to distribute 
     funds from the escrow account to satisfy this determination. 
     After all petitions under this section against a satellite 
     carrier have been resolved, any amount remaining in the 
     satellite carrier's escrow account after February 17, 2009, 
     after deducting the reasonable costs incurred by the 
     Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Judges under this 
     section, shall be returned to the satellite carrier.
       ``(4) Judicial review.--A satellite carrier may seek 
     judicial review of all determinations of the Copyright 
     Royalty Judges on a consolidated basis in a single petition 
     of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days after the later 
     of--
       ``(A) February 17, 2009; or
       ``(B) the date on which all amounts in the escrow account 
     have been distributed or returned.
       ``(d) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after February 
     17, 2009.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 119 the following:

``119A. Limitations on exclusive rights: secondary transmissions of 
              distant network signals for private home viewing by 
              certain satellite carriers''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my 
colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite 
Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased

[[Page 22218]]

that Senators Byrd, Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign 
are original cosponsors.
  I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This 
bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that 
Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman 
Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested 
parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for 
all of his hard work on this issue.
  We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through 
no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals 
from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a 
nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television 
broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law 
and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my 
constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability 
of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West 
Virginians, cable television is not available.
  We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill 
immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption 
to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not 
have the ability to get local television stations in their area to 
continue to receive distant signals.
  Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 4070. A bill to exempt children of certain Filipino World War II 
veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it has long been evident that our 
immigration system needs to be reformed, and the current debate on 
immigration is long overdue. I am pleased that this body is addressing 
this important issue in such a comprehensive manner. However, if the 
Senate's debate on immigration is to be truly comprehensive, it must 
address not only its better-known propositions and factors but also its 
lesser-known ones as well.
  My bill seeks to address and resolve an immigration issue that, while 
rooted in a set of historical circumstance more than seven decades old, 
remains unresolved to this day. It is an issue of great concern to 
Filipino World War II veterans and to Filipino Americans, and it ought 
to be an issue of great concern to all American veterans and citizens 
with an interest in justice and fairness.
  Before I discuss the specifics of my bill, I would first like to 
thank my dear friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, 
Daniel K. Inouye, for cosponsoring this bill. In the 101st Congress, 
Senator Inouye authored Section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990, 
which provided for the naturalization of Filipino World War II 
veterans. Senator Inouye has a long history of being involved in this 
important effort and it is an honor to have his support on my bill 
today.
  To understand the significance of this bill, it is important to first 
provide some background about the historical circumstances that got us 
to where we are today.
  In 1941, on the basis of 1934 legislation enacted prior to Philippine 
independence, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive 
order. Through this order, President Roosevelt invoked his authority to 
``call and order into the service of the Armed Forces of the United 
States,'' including ``all of the organized military forces of the 
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.'' This order drafted 
more than 200,000 Filipino citizens into the United States military. 
Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, Filipino soldiers 
fought alongside American soldiers in the defense of our country.
  Throughout the course of World War II, these Filipino soldiers proved 
themselves to be courageous and honorable comrades in arms as they 
helped the United States fulfill its mission. There was no question 
that they would be treated the same as American troops.
  These Filipino soldiers are war heroes, and deserved to be treated as 
such. They provided active duty service on behalf of the U.S. military, 
which should have qualified them for the same benefits as other active-
duty veterans. Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the First 
Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act in 1946, which 
included a rider that conditioned an appropriation of $200 million, for 
the benefit of the postwar Philippine Army, on the basis that service 
in the Commonwealth Army should not be deemed to have been service in 
the Armed Forces of the United States.
  Commonwealth Army members were those called into the service of the 
United States Armed Forces for the Far East. These members served 
between July 26, 1941, and June 30, 1946. Similarly, Congress enacted 
the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, which 
provided that service in the New Philippine Scouts was not deemed to be 
service in the U.S. military.
  New Philippine Scouts were Filipino citizens who served with the 
United States Armed Forces with the consent of the Philippine 
government. They served between October 6, 1945, and June 30, 1947.
  These veterans are now in their eighties and nineties. Of the 200,000 
Filipino veterans that served in World War II, close to 49,000 survive. 
Some of these veterans receive U.S. benefits, some do not. By 2010, it 
is estimated that there will be just 20,000 survivors.
  With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of the 
many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War 
II was finally recognized by our government, and Filipino veterans were 
offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. According to the 
former Immigration and Naturalization Service, about 15,000 Filipino 
veterans live in the U.S. and became citizens between 1941 and 1995 
under the authority of the Immigration Act of 1990. Between that time 
about 11,000 veterans who live in the Philippines were successfully 
naturalized. These thousands of Filipino veterans clearly wished to 
spend their golden years in the United States, and I am pleased that 
the 1990 Immigration reform efforts provided them the opportunity to do 
so.
  Unfortunately, the offer did not extend to the adult sons and 
daughters of these veterans. As a result, the Filipino veterans who 
fought on behalf of America, and who now live in American and continue 
to contribute to America, must do so alone. Due to a backlog in the 
issuing of visas, many of the children of these veterans have waited 
more than twenty years before being able to obtain an immigrant visa.
  My bill, by exempting children of certain Filipino World War II 
veterans from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas, will ensure 
that our Filipino World War II veterans can enjoy and be supported by 
their family members in their twilight years. I believe it is a simple 
yet profound way that this country may honor the sacrifices made more 
than six decades ago by these war heroes.
  I urge my colleagues to honor the valiant contributions of Filipino 
World War II veterans to our Nation by supporting my bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 4071. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the placed-in-service date requirement for low-income housing credit 
buildings and bonus depreciation property and the period for 
rehabilitation expenditures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the people of New Orleans and the rest 
of the Gulf Coast have been working hard to rebuild their communities 
and the economy of the region. The Gulf Opportunity (GO) Zone 
legislation that the Congress passed and the President signed into law 
at the end of last year, has contributed greatly to the rebuilding 
efforts.
  The benefits of this legislation have been tremendous so far. 
Hundreds of businesses, large and small, will be able

[[Page 22219]]

to take advantage of tax incentives made possible by the GO Zone bill. 
These include a bonus depreciation provision that allows businesses to 
take a 50 percent depreciation deduction in the first year on new plant 
or equipment in the GO Zone. This has helped jump start our recovery by 
giving businesses the incentive to invest quickly in the GO Zone.
  The GO Zone Act also increased the amount of low income housing tax 
credits available to GO Zone states. The Louisiana Housing Finance 
Agency reports that it has awarded more than $80 million in low income 
housing tax credits. These credits will be leveraged to finance 195 
rental housing developments for working families.
  The GO Zone also included an increased rehabilitation tax credit to 
encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures. 
We have many beautiful, old buildings in New Orleans and along the 
Gulf. They are part of our heritage and as we rebuild we want to 
preserve that heritage.
  The problem with the GO Zone Act is that these tax benefits have 
limits in terms of the time that they are available for our rebuilding. 
Most require that any plant and equipment, or the housing financed by 
the tax credits, must be placed in service by the end of 2008--that is 
only two years away. The rehabilitation tax credit is also only 
available until the end of 2008. The problem with this is that our 
recovery is going to take longer. In Louisiana we are rebuilding an 
entire city essentially from scratch. Whole communities were wiped out 
in Mississippi. We have never seen a recovery like the one we are 
attempting in the Gulf.
  The placed in service date is particularly difficult for the low 
income housing tax credits. It can take years to get together all of 
the financing for housing developments and even more time for 
construction. The current placed in service date effectively makes any 
credits allocated in 2008 unusable because it would be nearly 
impossible to get a building financed and constructed by the end of the 
year.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to extend the placed in service 
dates for the various GO Zone tax benefits for an additional two years. 
This will give us more time to take full advantage of the opportunities 
the GO Zone legislation has given us. Our recovery is proceeding 
steadily, but it will take time. We do not want to diminish the impact 
these tax credits will have on our recovery by artificially limiting 
their availability. My bill would make these credits available for a 
longer period of time so that the recovery in the Gulf will be 
sustained.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4071

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PLACED-IN-SERVICE DATE REQUIREMENT 
                   FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT BUILDINGS AND 
                   BONUS DEPRECIATION PROPERTY AND PERIOD FOR 
                   REHABILITATION EXPENDITURES IN GULF OPPORTUNITY 
                   ZONE.

       (a) Low-Income Housing Credit Buildings.--Section 1400N(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2008'' in paragraph (3)(A) and 
     inserting ``2008, 2009, or 2010'',
       (2) by striking ``during such period'' in paragraph 
     (3)(B)(ii) and inserting ``during the period described in 
     subparagraph (A)'', and
       (3) by striking ``or 2008'' in paragraph (4)(A) and 
     inserting ``2008, 2009, or 2010''.
       (b) Bonus Depreciation Property.--Section 1400N(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2007 (December 31, 2008, in 
     the case of nonresidential real property and residential 
     rental property)'' in paragraph (2)(A)(v) and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2010'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' in paragraph (3)(B) and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
       (c) Increase in Rehabilitation Credit.--Section 1400N(h) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``2008'' and inserting ``2010''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 4072. A bill to address ongoing small business and homeowner needs 
in the Gulf Coast States impacted by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane 
Rita; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. LANDRIEU: Mr. President, I come to the floor today to highlight 
the ongoing needs of our small businesses and homeowners in the Gulf 
Coast who were devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In Louisiana 
alone, these disasters claimed 1,464 lives, destroyed more than 200,000 
homes and 18,000 businesses and inflicted $25 billion in uninsured 
losses. Many of my colleagues here in the Senate have been down to 
Louisiana and have seen firsthand the size and scope of the 
destruction. The Congress has been very generous in providing billions 
of Federal recovery dollars as well as valuable Gulf Opportunity (GO) 
Zone tax incentives to help spur recovery in the region. These 
resources will be key in the recovery of the region but there are 
additional needs on the ground that still must be addressed. That is 
why I am proud to introduce a bill today, the Gulf Coast Back to 
Business and Homes Act of 2006, which I believe, addresses these 
problems and shows our small businesses and homeowners that the Federal 
government is responsive to their needs. I am happy that my colleague, 
Senator Kerry, Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business & 
Entrepreneurship Committee, has joined me by cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  Katrina was the most destructive hurricane ever to hit the United 
States. The next month, in September, Hurricane Rita hit the Louisiana 
and Texas coast. It was the second most powerful hurricane ever to hit 
the United States, wreaking havoc on the southwestern part of my state 
and the east Texas coast. This one-two punch devastated Louisiana 
lives, communities and jobs, stretching from Cameron Parish in the west 
to Plaquemines Parish in the east.
  We are now rebuilding our State and the wide variety of communities 
that were devastated by Rita and Katrina, areas representing a diverse 
mix of population, income and cultures. We hope to restore the region's 
uniqueness and its greatness. To do that, we need to rebuild our local 
economies now and far into the future.
  My State estimates that there were 71,000 businesses in the Katrina 
and Rita disaster zones. As I mentioned, a total of 18,752 of these 
businesses were catastrophically destroyed. However, on a wider scale, 
according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 125,000 small and 
medium-sized businesses in the Gulf region were disrupted by Katrina 
and Rita. Many of these businesses have yet to resume operations and 
others are struggling to survive. We will never succeed without these 
small businesses. They will be the key to the revitalization of the 
Gulf Coast. We also cannot succeed if our homeowners are being buried 
under red tape and regulations.
  The people who work for the Small Business Administration and FEMA 
are dedicated and interested to help in the recovery of our region. 
However, these individuals are operating under a system which is 
inadequate and, in some cases, unresponsive to needs on the ground.
  I come to the floor today to introduce a bill which provides 
commonsense solutions to get the Federal assistance to our struggling 
businesses and homeowners. If we don't help them now, building a strong 
Gulf Coast will be all the more difficult if residents cannot rebuild 
their homes and businesses cannot open their doors.
  After talking to the business leaders and small businesses in my 
State, there are two things that they need right now: access to capital 
and additional time to repay their SBA Disaster loans. For homeowners, 
they are still encountering an SBA which is only disbursing small 
amounts of loan funds for home rebuilding. The SBA is also deducting 
proceeds from State-administered housing recovery grants to payoff 
existing SBA Disaster home loans. I understand the SBA is just doing 
its job and following the current laws, but I believe this is a 
situation where the current laws are actually

[[Page 22220]]

hurting taxpayers in their efforts to fully recover.
  For example, under current law, the SBA cannot disburse more than 
$10,000 for an approved Disaster Loan without showing collateral. This 
is to limit the loss to the SBA in the event that a loan defaults. 
However, this disbursement amount has not been increased since 1998 and 
these days, $10,000 is not enough to get a business up and running or 
to allow a homeowner to start making repairs. Our bill increases this 
collateral requirement for Katrina and Rita Disaster Loans from $10,000 
to $35,000.
  To address the lack of access to capital for our businesses, the bill 
includes a provision to provide funds to Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Alabama, and Texas to help small businesses now. Not three months from 
now, but as quickly as possible. We are asking for $100 million so that 
businesses can have money they need to repair, rebuild, and pay their 
employees until they get back up and running again. The States know 
what the needs of their affected businesses are and we want to provide 
them with this money so they can start helping businesses now.
  Many businesses and homeowners are also coming up on the end of their 
standard one-year deferment of payment on principal and interest on 
their SBA Disaster Loans. For most disasters, one-year is more than 
enough time for borrowers to get back on their feet. But for disasters 
on the scale of Katrina and Rita, one-year came and went, with 
communities just now seeing gas stations open and some homeowners are 
just now returning to rebuild their homes. This is a unique situation 
and for French Quarter businesses, where tourism is down 85 percent 
from pre-Katrina levels, to require them to start making payments on a 
$50,000 loan is virtually impossible if there are no customers! 
Homeowners too are experiencing widespread uncertainty and I believe 
the current one-year deferment requires serious reconsideration. That 
is why this bill gives borrowers an additional year to get their lives 
in order--allow residents to begin fixing their homes and allow 
businesses the time for economic activity to pick back up.
  For homeowners in Louisiana, the State is doing its part by setting 
up the Louisiana Road Home program, to provide homeowners with up to 
$150,000 in grant proceeds for uninsured losses on their properties. 
However, many applicants are concerned because under the Stafford and 
Small Business Acts, the SBA is required to ensure there are no 
`duplication of benefits' provided to disaster victims. This means that 
SBA must review every file which received an SBA Disaster Loan, and if 
there is deemed to be a duplication, deduct the duplication amount from 
the grant proceeds. As I said, I want the SBA to ensure taxpayers funds 
are used wisely, but at the same time, I want to ensure that all 
residents are able to get the funds they need to rebuild their homes.
  Under the current scenario, some residents who have additional 
uninsured losses, are being required to still pay back these grant 
proceeds. This is because many SBA loss inspections were done right 
after the storms in 2005, but since then building/labor costs have 
increased dramatically, and this is not reflected in the SBA verified 
loss. Borrowers are able to request a loan modification from SBA, but 
many residents who waited months and months for SBA to respond, are 
wary to go through the process again, especially if there is a prospect 
they will be declined for the increased loan amount. I can't blame them 
because there is enough uncertainty down there right now. Personally, I 
would also be hesitant to go through the SBA loan process again if I 
had to fill out as much paperwork as my constituents have had to fill 
out, and to receive constant requests for more information once they 
think they are done with submitting information.
  For this reason, this bill provides the SBA Administrator the 
flexibility to consider this `duplication of benefits' to be, rather 
than the entire SBA loan amount, to instead be the difference between 
the Federal Government's subsidized interest rate on the loan and the 
market rate at which the borrower could have borrowed such funds. This 
provides borrowers with additional funds for rebuilding while retaining 
the Federal Government's financial responsibility to taxpayers.
  In introducing this bill today, I am hopeful it sends the signal to 
Gulf Coast residents and businesses that Congress has not forgotten 
about them. Congress has done a great deal during the 109th Congress to 
help disaster victims, but that does mean we should just write off 
recurring problems to the responsibility of states or disaster victims 
themselves. I believe that both the leadership on the Senate Committee 
on Small Business & Entrepreneurship as well as the new SBA 
Administrator, Steve Preston, are receptive to addressing these ongoing 
needs in the Gulf Coast. I look forward to working closely with them in 
the coming weeks to provide substantive and lasting solutions for our 
small businesses and homeowners.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4072

       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 ``Gulf Coast Back to Business 
     and Homes Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) 43 percent of businesses that close following a natural 
     disaster never reopen;
       (2) an additional 29 percent of businesses close down 
     permanently within 2 years of a natural disaster;
       (3) Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United 
     States on August 29, 2005, negatively impacting small 
     business concerns and disrupting commerce in the States of 
     Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama;
       (4) Hurricane Rita struck the Gulf Coast of the United 
     States on September 24, 2005, negatively impacting small 
     business concerns and disrupting commerce in the States of 
     Texas and Louisiana;
       (5) according to the United States Chamber of Commerce, 
     more than 125,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the 
     Gulf Coast were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane 
     Rita;
       (6) due to a slow initial Federal response and the 
     widespread devastation in the affected States, businesses 
     impacted by Hurricane Katrina are in dire need of increased 
     access to capital and technical assistance to recover and 
     prosper; and
       (7) without the full recovery and prosperity of affected 
     businesses, the Gulf Coast, and the rest of the United 
     States, will be negatively impacted.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``Disaster Area'' means an area in which the 
     President has declared a major disaster in response to 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005;
       (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122); and
       (3) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632).

     SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN RECOVERY GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Commerce $100,000,000 for the Economic 
     Development Administration of the Department of Commerce to 
     make grants to the appropriate State government agencies in 
     Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Disbursement of Funds.--The Department of Commerce 
     shall disburse the funds authorized under subsection (a) in 
     the most expeditious manner possible to the designated 
     States, based on--
       (1) the number of small business concerns directly damaged 
     or disrupted by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita 
     of 2005 in the State;
       (2) the number of residents displaced from the State by 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005;
       (3) the number of jobs lost or disrupted by Hurricane 
     Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 in the State;
       (4) the extent of economic disruption by Hurricane Katrina 
     of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 in the State; and
       (5) the number of evacuees from any other State due to 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, to whom 
     the designated State is providing assistance.
       (c) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Grants awarded to a State under subsection 
     (a) shall be used by the State to provide grants, which may 
     be made to any small business concern located in a Disaster 
     Area that was negatively impacted

[[Page 22221]]

     by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, to 
     assist such small business concern for the purposes of--
       (A) paying employees;
       (B) paying bills and other existing financial obligations;
       (C) making repairs;
       (D) purchasing inventory;
       (E) restarting or operating that business in the community 
     in which it was conducting operations prior to Hurricane 
     Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, or to a 
     neighboring area or county or parish in a Disaster Area; or
       (F) covering additional costs until that small business 
     concern is able to obtain funding through insurance claims, 
     Federal assistance programs, or other sources.
       (2) Criteria.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     in making grants under paragraph (1), a State may use such 
     criteria as the State determines appropriate, and shall not 
     be required to apply eligibility criteria for programs 
     administered by the Federal Government, including the 
     Department of Commerce.
       (3) Administrative expenses.--The Department of Commerce 
     may use not more than $1,000,000 of the funds authorized 
     under subsection (a) to administer the provision of grants to 
     the designated States under this subsection.

     SEC. 5. DISASTER LOANS AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE 
                   RITA.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting immediately after 
     paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Disaster loans after hurricane katrina or hurricane 
     rita in a disaster area.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `Disaster Area' means an area in which the 
     President has declared a major disaster in response to 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005; and
       ``(ii) the term `qualified borrower' means a person to whom 
     the Administrator made a loan under this section because of 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.
       ``(B) Deferment of disaster loan payments.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, payments of principal and interest on a loan to a 
     qualified borrower made before December 31, 2006, shall be 
     deferred, and no interest shall accrue with respect to such 
     loan, during the time period described in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Time period.--The time period for purposes of clause 
     (i) shall be 1 year from the later of the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph or the date on which funds are distributed 
     under a loan described in clause (i), but may be extended to 
     2 years from such date, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator.
       ``(iii) Resumption of payments.--At the end of the time 
     period described in clause (ii), the payment of periodic 
     installments of principal and interest shall be required with 
     respect to such loan, in the same manner and subject to the 
     same terms and conditions as would otherwise be applicable to 
     any other loan made under this subsection.''.
       (b) Increasing Collateral Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including section 7(c)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(c)(6)), the Administrator may not require 
     collateral for any covered loan made by the Administrator.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered 
     loan'' means a loan in an amount of not more than $35,000 
     made--
       (A) under section 7(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)(1));
       (B) as a result of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane 
     Rita of 2005; and
       (C) after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. WAIVER OF DUPLICATION OF CERTAIN BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 9 of title II of the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
     on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 
     120 Stat. 471) is amended under the heading ``community 
     development fund (including transfer of funds)'' under the 
     heading ``Community Planning and Development'' under the 
     heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'', by 
     inserting after ``Army Corps of Engineers:'' the following: 
     ``Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso 
     or any other provision of law, in providing assistance in the 
     State of Louisiana, the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration may (in determining whether activities are 
     reimbursable under, or whether funds have been made available 
     under, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) using amounts made 
     available under this heading) use as the amount of a loan 
     under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)) the amount attributable to the difference between the 
     rate of interest on such loan and the market rate at which 
     such borrower could have borrowed such funds, over the period 
     of such loan:''.
       (b) Effective Date and Applicability.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be deemed to have taken effect as though enacted as 
     part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 
     2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).
       (2) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any application for assistance under section 
     7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) that is 
     submitted not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

                          ____________________