[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 23009-23015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lugar, Ms. 
        Mikulski, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 4100. A bill to expand visa waiver program to countries on a 
probationary basis and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel 
and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2006, along with my good 
friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, Mikulski, and Santorum.
  This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way 
that would increase cooperation with key allies in the war on terror 
while strengthening U.S. national security.
  The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the visa waiver 
system so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous 
for years to come.
  This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our 
Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy 
challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several 
allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our 
friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be 
successful. This legislation will help us to solidify these 
relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, 
while also enhancing travel security and safety at home.
  My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, 
in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver 
Program to countries that are true friends of America and prepared to 
do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders.
  For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was 
established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and 
strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the 
selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 
90 days for tourism or business.
  Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the 
United Kingdom. But there are a number of new allies who would also 
like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet 
strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism 
initiatives.
  Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They 
were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and 
despite their desire for freedom.
  Today, many of these countries have boots on the ground in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and want to help us stop the terrorists and promote 
democracy. These countries are naturally suited to help other countries 
as they fight for freedom and democracy. Many of these countries are 
also actively engaged in Cuba, helping to promote democracy there. 
Likewise, they have a unique understanding of the struggle for 
democracy that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, 
these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the 
West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the U.K., or Spain can travel 
easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are 
given second-class treatment.
  I would like to share a few examples to put a human face on this 
problem.

[[Page 23010]]

  I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who 
served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America 
to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his 
application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included 
a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers.
  Another example involves young students from places like Latvia, 
Estonia, or Bulgaria. These young people have a positive view of 
America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa 
applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and 
tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day.
  By limiting travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence 
with the future leaders of our closest allies.
  I have been working for the last several months to develop a piece of 
legislation that will address these challenges, without sacrificing 
U.S. security. I was pleased when I heard President Bush announce his 
intention to focus on this issue in the coming year. On the margins of 
the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa 
Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help 
and friendship.
  I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that this is not 
simply a reward for these countries. The true reward is the knowledge 
that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance 
international security. But the foremost goal of this legislation is to 
create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security 
advantages for the United States.
  By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our 
closest allies in the war on terror and losing the hearts and minds of 
their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change 
direction in a way that will promote our own national security 
interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and 
Counterterrorism Partnership Act can achieve all of these objectives.
  What would this bill do?
  The legislation would expand visa-free travel privileges for up to 
five new countries, for a probationary period of 3 years.
  In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive 
branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on 
counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat 
to the United States. However, the country would also be required to 
take a number of new steps to enhance our common security.
  Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude 
new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation 
on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical 
security issues.
  Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they 
cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very 
cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is 
more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive 
information that can help our intelligence community and law 
enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. 
By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information-
sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can 
reduce threats to the United States.
  Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a 
number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal 
entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by 
terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for 
participation in the program would include electronic passports with 
biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or 
fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol.
  These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. 
Expanding the number of participating countries would increase the 
number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow 
the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to 
other missions with more critical security needs.
  If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these 
requirements, their probationary status in the program could be 
revoked. Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it 
could be expanded to include additional countries.
  The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security 
requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa 
Waiver Program. In this post 9/11 world, the U.S. Government has 
already required additional security measures of participating visa 
waiver countries, such as machine-readable passports with biometric 
information. But we can and must do more.
  I was very pleased that last week, Homeland Security Secretary 
Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the 
efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His recommendations 
included an electronic travel authorization system, additional 
passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security 
and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home 
country assistance in repatriation for any traveler who overstays the 
terms of their visa or violates U.S. law.
  As the administration works to develop the details of these 
recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the 
executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for the Visa 
Waiver Program improvements.
  In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland 
security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. 
competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven 
to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline 
revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the 
United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve 
attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would 
benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.
  As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real 
opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and 
the visa waiver system overall.
  Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to 
examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee-
jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. 
When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you 
can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and 
strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on 
terror.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the 
President to move this legislation forward.
  As the administration works to develop the details of these 
recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the 
executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa 
Waiver Program improvements.
  In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland 
security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. 
competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven 
to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline 
revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the 
United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve 
attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would 
benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.
  As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real 
opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and 
the visa waiver system overall.
  Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to 
examine

[[Page 23011]]

this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee-jerk 
reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When 
you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see 
that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen 
the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the 
President to move this legislation forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4100

       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 ``Secure Travel and 
     Counterterrorism Partnership Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the United States should 
     expand the visa waiver program to extend visa-free travel 
     privileges to nationals of foreign countries that are allies 
     in the war on terrorism as that expansion will--
       (1) enhance bilateral cooperation on critical 
     counterterrorism and information sharing initiatives;
       (2) support and expand tourism and business opportunities 
     to enhance long-term economic competitiveness; and
       (3) strengthen bilateral relationships.

     SEC. 3. VISA WAIVER PROGRAM EXPANSION.

       Section 217(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1187(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Probationary participation of program countries.--
       ``(A) Requirement to establish.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section and not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of the Secure Travel and 
     Counterterrorism Partnership Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     establish a pilot program to permit not more than 5 foreign 
     countries that are not designated as program countries under 
     paragraph (1) to participate in the program.
       ``(B) Designation as a probationary program country.--A 
     foreign country is eligible to participate in the program 
     under this paragraph if--
       ``(i) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 
     such participation will not compromise the security or law 
     enforcement interests of the United States;
       ``(ii) that country is close to meeting all the 
     requirements of paragraph (2) and other requirements for 
     designation as a program country under this section and has 
     developed a feasible strategic plan to meet all such 
     requirements not later than 3 years after the date the 
     country begins participation in the program under this 
     paragraph;
       ``(iii) that country meets all the requirements that the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate to ensure the security 
     and integrity of travel documents, including requirements to 
     issue electronic passports that include biometric information 
     and to promptly report lost, stolen, or fraudulent passports 
     to the Government of the United States;
       ``(iv) that country cooperated with the Government of the 
     United States on counterterrorism initiatives and information 
     sharing before the date of the enactment of this paragraph; 
     and
       ``(v) that country has entered into an agreement with the 
     Government of the United States by which that country agrees 
     to further advance United States security interests by 
     implementing such additional counterterrorism cooperation and 
     information sharing measures as may be requested by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State.
       ``(C) Considerations for country selection.--
       ``(i) Visa refusal rates.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may consider the rate of refusals of nonimmigrant 
     visitor visas for nationals of a foreign country in 
     determining whether to permit that country to participate in 
     the program under this paragraph but may not refuse to permit 
     that country to participate in the program under this 
     paragraph solely on the basis of such rate unless the 
     Secretary determines that such rate is a security concern to 
     the United States.
       ``(ii) Overstay rates.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may consider the rate at which nationals of a foreign country 
     violate the terms of their visas by remaining in the United 
     States after the expiration of such a visa in determining 
     whether to permit that country to participate in the program 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(D) Term of participation.--
       ``(i) Initial probationary term.--A foreign country may 
     participate in the program under this paragraph for an 
     initial term of 3 years.
       ``(ii) Extension of participation.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, may permit a country to participate in the program 
     under this paragraph after the expiration of the initial term 
     described in clause (i) for 1 additional period of not more 
     than 2 years if that country--

       ``(I) has demonstrated significant progress toward meeting 
     the requirements of paragraph (2) and all other requirements 
     for designation as a program country under this section;
       ``(II) has submitted a plan for meeting the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) and all other requirements for designation as a 
     program country under this section; and
       ``(III) continues to be determined not to compromise the 
     security or law enforcement interests of the United States.

       ``(iii) Termination of participation.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may terminate the participation of a 
     country in the program under this paragraph at any time if 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
     determines that the country--

       ``(I) is not in compliance with the requirements of this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(II) is not able to demonstrate significant and 
     quantifiable progress, on an annual basis, toward meeting the 
     requirements of paragraph (2) and all other requirements for 
     designation as a program country under this section.

       ``(E) Technical assistance.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     provide technical guidance to a country that participates in 
     the program under this paragraph to assist that country in 
     meeting the requirements of paragraph (2) and all other 
     requirements for designation as a program country under this 
     section.
       ``(F) Reporting requirements.--
       ``(i) Annual report.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to 
     Congress an annual report on the implementation of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(ii) Final assessment.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date that the foreign country's participation in the program 
     under this paragraph terminates, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
     submit a final assessment to Congress regarding the 
     implementation of this paragraph. Such final assessment shall 
     contain the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and the Secretary of State regarding permitting 
     additional foreign countries to participate in the program 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 4. CALCULATION OF THE RATES OF VISA OVERSTAYS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop 
     and implement procedures to improve the manner in which the 
     rates of nonimmigrants who violate the terms of their visas 
     by remaining in the United States after the expiration of 
     such a visa are calculated.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS.

       (a) Visa Fees.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall review the fee structure for visas issued by the 
     United States and submit to Congress a report on that 
     structure, including any recommendations of the Comptroller 
     General for improvements to that structure.
       (b) Secure Travel Standards.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of 
     State, shall submit a report to Congress that describes plans 
     for enhancing secure travel standards for existing visa 
     waiver program countries, including the feasibility of 
     instituting an electronic authorization travel system, 
     additional passenger information exchanges, and enhanced 
     airport security standards.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2013 to 
     carry out this Act and the amendment made by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 4102. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 
the use of telecommunications devices for the purposes of preventing or 
obstructing the broadcast or exchange of election-related information; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this year we witnessed a historic election, 
where the American people said loud and clear that the Nation is going 
in the wrong direction and things must change. One important part of 
that change is cleaning up our electoral process.
  Dirty tricks are not a new thing in American politics. I am from 
Chicago, and my hometown has seen its share of political tricks. But 
some of tricks we have seen in recent elections astounded even those of 
us who thought we had seen everything.

[[Page 23012]]

  For example, in 2002, the executive director of the New Hampshire 
Republican State Committee saw flyers advertising telephone numbers for 
Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts that offered voters rides to the 
polls. The executive director then hatched the idea of jamming those 
phone lines on election day to prevent voters from getting rides to the 
polls.
  He consulted the New England Regional Political Director for the 
Republican National Committee, who led him to an associate who could 
handle phone jamming efforts, an outfit called GOP Marketplace. GOP 
Marketplace contacted an Idaho-based tele-services company that agreed 
to have employees place hang-up calls to the Manchester Democratic 
Party and the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association--the two 
groups offering rides--on election day, November 5, 2002.
  As a result of these efforts, the New Hampshire Democratic Party's 
get-out-the-vote volunteers and employees answered the phones only to 
find callers who said nothing and immediately hung up. Legitimate 
voters who called the Manchester Democratic Party or the Manchester 
Professional Firefighters Association seeking a ride to the polls 
received busy signals.
  The Department of Justice prosecuted many of those responsible for 
this dirty campaign, and some of the guilty have already served their 
sentences. These men were tried under existing phone harassment and 
civil rights laws. However, it is likely that the perpetrators of the 
next phone jamming effort will not be so ham-handed. General harassment 
laws may be insufficient to get at the next conspiracy. And even in the 
most recent election, we continue to hear about instances in which 
phone lines are misused.
  That is why I am introducing the Election Jamming Prevention Act 
today. This bill will ensure that those who seek to disable election-
related telephone communications will be criminally liable. This does 
not impede political speech--but this does stop nefarious efforts to 
shut down phone lines to cripple election-related efforts. From get-
out-the-vote efforts, to voter education campaigns, qualified voters 
deserve to have access to information that will assist them in the 
exercise of their right to vote. Someone's ability to hire a company to 
place hang-up calls should not determine whether voters get the 
information they need to go to the polls on election day.
  This shouldn't be a partisan issue, so I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill. 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. 4102

       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 ``Election Jamming Prevention 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The most fundamental right accorded to United States 
     citizens by the Constitution is the right to vote, and 
     unimpeded exercise of the right to vote is essential to the 
     functioning of our democracy.
       (2) Historically, significant efforts have been undertaken 
     to prevent qualified individuals from exercising this right.
       (3) Poll taxes, property requirements, and literacy tests 
     were once used to restrict voters' access to the polls. Now, 
     efforts like deceptive practices, intimidation, and dirty 
     tricks are used to impede qualified voters' exercise of their 
     right to vote, to prevent voters from making informed 
     decisions as to how to cast that vote, and to prevent 
     candidates, parties, and organizations from engaging in 
     constitutionally protected political speech.
       (4) In recent elections, there have been allegations of 
     political campaigns and committees using telephone jamming 
     techniques to shut down the communication operations of 
     groups supporting their political opponents.
       (5) In November 2002, according to the Department of 
     Justice, groups working on behalf of the Republican 
     candidates in New Hampshire conspired to shut down Democratic 
     get-out-the-vote efforts by placing hang-up calls to the 
     phones of the Manchester Democratic Party and the Manchester 
     Professional Firefighters Association, which were providing 
     qualified voters rides to the election polling places. 
     Several people have pled guilty or been convicted in 
     connection with the incident.
       (6) As a result of the hang-up call effort, the phone lines 
     of the Manchester Democratic Party and the Manchester 
     Professional Firefighters Association were jammed on election 
     day 2002 and qualified voters were unable to access 
     information that would have facilitated their access to 
     polling places.
       (7) The use of telephones or other communication devices to 
     jam election-related communications should be prohibited in 
     order to protect qualified voters' right to vote.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PREVENTING OR OBSTRUCTING THE 
                   BROADCAST OR EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION THROUGH 
                   TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (C) of section 223(a)(1) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``with the intent to annoy, abuse, 
     threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who 
     receives the communications;'' and inserting ``with the 
     intent to--
       ``(i) annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the 
     called number or who receives the communications;
       ``(ii) prevent or obstruct the broadcast or exchange of 
     election-related information; or
       ``(iii) impair or obstruct any other telecommunications 
     device from being used to engage in communications containing 
     election-related information;''.
       (2) Election-related information.--Subsection (h) of 
     section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     223(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) The term `election-related information' means 
     information related to--
       ``(A) the endorsement, support, promotion of, or opposition 
     to any clearly identified candidate or slate of candidates 
     for the office of President, Vice President, presidential 
     elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of 
     Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory 
     or possession;
       ``(B) the time, place, or manner for the election of such 
     offices; or
       ``(C) the facilitation of transport to or from polling 
     places for any such election.''.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--Section 223 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Private Right of Action for Injunctive or Declarative 
     Relief Against Certain Actions.--Any person aggrieved by a 
     violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) may bring a civil action or 
     other proper proceeding for injunctive or declarative relief 
     in any court of competent jurisdiction, including an 
     application in a United States district court.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH:
  S. 4104. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
credit rate parity for all renewable resources under the electricity 
production credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide for credit rate parity under section 45 of the Internal Revenue 
Code for electricity from eligible renewable resources produced and 
sold after December 31, 2006.
  Currently, certain renewable resources such as wind and closed-loop 
biomass receive a credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour produced. For 
other renewables, such as open-loop biomass and incremental hydropower, 
the amount of the credit is reduced by half.
  I have been a longtime supporter of the production tax credit. There 
are significant wind facilities in Oregon, where we have over 335 
megawatts of installed wind capacity. These facilities provide clean 
energy as well as important revenues to farmers and rural counties in 
Eastern Oregon. My bill does not reduce the credit rate for wind but, 
rather, increases the rate for those renewables that are currently 
eligible only for the reduced credit rate.
  I have also heard from those industries that receive the reduced 
credit rate about the disadvantage this creates for them in the 
marketplace. Often, when bidding to provide green power, the difference 
in the credit rate makes the difference in being outbid. We should 
provide a level playing field for all eligible renewables.
  I applaud and support the current efforts to extend the existing 
section 45 tax credits for renewables for another year. I hope that can 
be accomplished before we adjourn sine die. In introducing this 
legislation today, I want to begin the discussion that will lead to 
parity for all of the important new renewable technologies that can 
help us meet growing demands for electricity with clean, sustainable 
resources. As a

[[Page 23013]]

member of the Finance Committee, this is an issue which I will pursue 
next Congress, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this 
effort to encourage the development of renewable energy resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 4107. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to replace 
the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits with a partially refundable 
college opportunity credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the College 
Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2006. This legislation creates a new tax 
credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American 
families.
  An October 2006 College Board report found that this year tuition and 
other costs at public and private universities rose faster than 
inflation. And, according to the report, tuition and fees at public 
universities rose more in the past five years than at any other time in 
the past 30 years, increasing by 35 percent to $5,836 this academic 
year. Over the same time period, tuition and fees at private 
universities increased 22 percent to $22,218.
  Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are 
keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around the 
country, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able 
to pay for college for their children. These parents know that earning 
a college education will result in greater earnings for their children 
and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest 
opportunities possible.
  In 1997, we implemented two new tax credits to make college 
affordable--the HOPE credit and the lifetime learning credit. These tax 
credits were important and have helped families afford college, but I 
believe we can do more. This week the Senate Finance Committee held a 
hearing on tax incentives for higher education in which we learned that 
the existing tax credits are not reaching enough students, particularly 
lower income students who are most severely impacted by rising 
tuitions.
  The HOPE and lifetime learning credits are not refundable, and 
therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to 
receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college 
students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too 
low. In order to receive the full benefit of the lifetime learning 
credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This 
is nearly double the average annual public four-year college tuition 
and four times the average annual tuition of a community college. Over 
80 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees 
under $10,000.
  In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost 
of 4 years of college. Currently the HOPE Credit applies only to the 
first 2 years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 
2006, COTC, helps students and parents afford all 4 years of college. 
It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of 
the suggestions made by experts, including those at this week's Finance 
Committee hearing. My legislation creates a new credit that replaces 
the existing HOPE credit and lifetime learning credit and ultimately 
makes these benefits more generous.
  The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax 
credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half-
time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first 
$1,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit to the next 
$3,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $2,500 each year per 
student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time 
students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for 
the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the 
first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next 
$3,000 of expenses.
  Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with 
tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit 
and the lifetime learning credit apply to the COTC: the COTC will be 
phased out ratably for taxpayers with income between $45,000 and 
$55,000--$90,000 and $110,000 for married taxpayers. These amounts are 
indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses.
  The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2006 simplifies the 
existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will 
enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that 
many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax 
credit for college education a reality next Congress. 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. 4107

       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 ``College Opportunity Tax 
     Credit Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Allowance of credit.--Section 25A(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Hope Scholarship 
     Credit'' and inserting ``the eligible student credit amount 
     determined under subsection (b)'', and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Lifetime Learning 
     Credit'' and inserting ``the part-time, graduate, and other 
     student credit amount determined under subsection (c)''.
       (2) Name of credit.--The heading for section 25A of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 25A. COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.''.

       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of parti IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 25A and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 25A. College opportunity credit.''.
       (b) Eligible Students.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 25A(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the Hope Scholarship Credit'' and 
     inserting ``the eligible student credit amount determined 
     under this subsection'', and
       (B) by striking ``Per student credit'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``In general''.
       (2) Amount of credit.--Paragraph (4) of section 25A(b) of 
     such Code (relating to applicable limit) is amended by 
     striking ``2'' and inserting ``3''.
       (3) Credit refundable.--
       (A) In general.--Section 25A of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Portion of Credit Refundable.--
       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate credits allowed under 
     subpart C shall be increased by the amount of the credit 
     which would be allowed under this section--
       ``(A) by reason of subsection (b), and
       ``(B) without regard to this subsection and the limitation 
     under section 26(a) or subsection (j), as the case may be.
       ``(2) Treatment of credit.--The amount of the credit 
     allowed under this subsection shall not be treated as a 
     credit allowed under this subpart and shall reduce the amount 
     of credit otherwise allowable under subsection (a) without 
     regard to section 26(a) or subsection (j), as the case may 
     be.''.
       (B) Technical amendment.--Section 1324(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or enacted by 
     the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2006'' before the 
     period at the end.
       (4) Limitations.--
       (A) Credit allowed for 4 years.--Subparagraph (A) of 
     section 25A(b)(2) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``2'' in the text and in the heading and 
     inserting ``4'', and
       (ii) by striking ``the Hope Scholarship Credit'' and 
     inserting ``the credit allowable''.
       (B) Elimination of limitation on first 2 years of 
     postsecondary education.--Section 25A(b)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (C) and by redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
       (5) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading of subsection (b) of section 25A of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Eligible Students.--''.
       (B) Section 25A(b)(2) of such Code is amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Hope Scholarship 
     Credit'' and inserting ``the credit allowable'', and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (4)(B), by striking ``the Hope Scholarship Credit'' and 
     inserting ``the credit allowable''.
       (c) Part-Time, Graduate, and Other Students.--

[[Page 23014]]

       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 25A of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Part-Time, Graduate, and Other Students.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any student for whom an 
     election is in effect under this section for any taxable 
     year, the part-time, graduate, and other student credit 
     amount determined under this subsection for any taxable year 
     is an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 40 percent of so much of the qualified tuition and 
     related expenses paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year 
     (for education furnished to the student during any academic 
     period beginning in such taxable year) as does not exceed 
     $1,000, plus
       ``(B) 20 percent of such expenses so paid as exceeds $1,000 
     but does not exceed the applicable limit.
       ``(2) Applicable limit.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), 
     the applicable limit for any taxable year is an amount equal 
     to 3 times the dollar amount in effect under paragraph (1)(A) 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(3) Special rules for determining expenses.--
       ``(A) Coordination with credit for eligible students.--The 
     qualified tuition and related expenses with respect to a 
     student who is an eligible student for whom a credit is 
     allowed under subsection (a)(1) for the taxable year shall 
     not be taken into account under this subsection.
       ``(B) Expenses for job skills courses allowed.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), qualified tuition and related 
     expenses shall include expenses described in subsection 
     (f)(1) with respect to any course of instruction at an 
     eligible educational institution to acquire or improve job 
     skills of the student.''.
       (2) Inflation adjustment.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (h) of section 25A of such Code 
     (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Dollar limitation on amount of credit under 
     subsection (a)(2).--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a taxable year beginning 
     after 2007, each of the $1,000 amounts under subsection 
     (c)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2006' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall 
     be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--The heading for paragraph (1) of 
     section 25A(h) of such code is amended by inserting ``under 
     subsection (a)(1)'' after ``credit''.
       (d) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Section 25A of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, as amended by subsection (b)(3), is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--In the case of a 
     taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the 
     credit allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year 
     shall not exceed the excess of--
       ``(1) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(2) the sum of the credits allowed under this subpart 
     (other than this section and sections 23, 24, and 25B) and 
     section 27 for the taxable year.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 25(a)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``25A,'' after ``24,''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 4109. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit 
the operation of certain aircraft not complying with stage 3 noise 
levels; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which would greatly 
improve the quality of life for many residents of New Jersey, and 
people across America, by reducing aircraft noise. The Aircraft Noise 
Reduction Act of 2006 would greatly reduce unnecessary levels of noise 
pollution by phasing out usage of the loudest aircraft still operating.
  I have long had a strong interest in this issue; indeed, I first 
introduced legislation calling for the phase-out of older, noisier 
aircraft in 1990, and since then, significant progress has been made. 
As we face an influx of many new aircraft to our system--some 5,000 new 
very light jets, VLJs, are expected to enter the U.S. aviation market 
and our airspace in the next decade--now is the time to rid our skies 
of the older, noisier planes.
  For purposes of rating aircraft noise levels, aircraft have to meet 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noise standards classified as 
``stages'': stage 1 and stage 2 noise levels are the loudest, while 
stage 3 and stage 4 (standards adopted just last year are the quietest. 
Commercial stage 1 aircraft were phased out by 1985, and Congress 
mandated the retirement of commercial stage 2 aircraft by 2000. 
However, these regulations only applied to aircraft weighing more than 
75,000 pounds; this means that there are still many loud business jets 
still in service. The legislation I am introducing today would finally 
bring closure to this issue by phasing out the use of all remaining 
stage 1 and stage 2 aircraft in the United States.
  The benefits of this total phase-out will be abundant. On average, 
older, noisier stage 2 aircraft are twice as loud as newer, quieter, 
stage 3 planes. Unfortunately, at Teterboro Airport in my home State of 
New Jersey, one of the largest general aviation airports in the 
country, loud stage 2 planes have been common until recently. This 
contributed greatly to the noise pollution problems experienced in New 
Jersey communities, and hurt property values for many citizens. It's 
precisely why it is critically important to work toward a fleet devoid 
of stage 1 and stage 2 aircraft.
  This issue has particular resonance in New Jersey, because Teterboro 
Airport and Morristown Airport, among others, are located in densely 
populated areas. Stage 1 and 2 aircraft flying into these airports 
constitute an unnecessary daily nuisance for, literally, hundreds of 
thousands of my constituents, and I believe it is time to take decisive 
action to correct the problem. Voluntarily banning these aircraft from 
one airport will only force them to use another local airport, so I 
believe that a nationwide ban is necessary.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, this bill would not only help decrease 
aircraft noise; it will also promote energy conservation. On average, 
stage 2 aircraft use 30 percent more fuel than otherwise comparable 
stage 3 jets, and passage of this bill would eliminate usage of many of 
the most fuel-inefficient aircraft still operational in America.
  My bill takes an approach which is sensitive to the economic hardship 
of communities who want to allow these aircraft to continue in use. 
Individual airports would still be allowed to opt-out of this measure 
by choosing to accommodate these noisier business jets. Also, the act 
would not take effect until fully 3 years after enactment, allowing 
ample time for businesses to adapt to the new regulations.
  Mr. President, I believe that this bill represents a significant step 
forward in the ongoing efforts to control aircraft noise, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 4109

       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 ``Aircraft Noise Reduction Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT NOT MEETING STAGE 3 NOISE 
                   LEVELS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 47534. Prohibition on operating certain aircraft 
       weighing 75,000 pounds or less not complying with stage 3 
       noise levels

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     (c), or (d), a person may not operate a civil subsonic 
     turbojet with a maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or less to or 
     from an airport in the United States unless the Secretary of 
     Transportation finds that the aircraft complies with stage 3 
     noise levels.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     aircraft operated only outside the 48 contiguous States.
       ``(c) Opt-out.--Subsection (a) shall not apply at an 
     airport where the airport operator has notified the Secretary 
     that it wants to continue to permit the operation of civil 
     subsonic turbojets with a maximum weight

[[Page 23015]]

     of 75,000 pounds or less that do not comply with stage 3 
     noise levels. The Secretary shall post the notices received 
     under this subsection on its website or in another place 
     easily accessible to the public.
       ``(d) Limitation.--The Secretary shall permit a person to 
     operate Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft with a maximum weight of 
     75,000 pounds or less to or from an airport in the contiguous 
     48 States in order--
       ``(1) to sell, lease, or use the aircraft outside the 48 
     contiguous States;
       ``(2) to scrap the aircraft;
       ``(3) to obtain modifications to the aircraft to meet stage 
     3 noise levels;
       ``(4) to perform scheduled heavy maintenance or significant 
     modifications on the aircraft at a maintenance facility 
     located in the contiguous 48 states;
       ``(5) to deliver the aircraft to an operator leasing the 
     aircraft from the owner or return the aircraft to the lessor;
       ``(6) to prepare or park or store the aircraft in 
     anticipation of any of the activities described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (5); or
       ``(7) to divert the aircraft to an alternative airport in 
     the 48 contiguous States on account of weather, mechanical, 
     fuel air traffic control or other safety reasons while 
     conducting a flight in order to perform any of the activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (6).
       ``(e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in the section may 
     be construed as interfering with, nullifying, or otherwise 
     affecting determinations made by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, or to be made by the Administration, with 
     respect to applications under part 161 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, that were pending on the date of 
     enactment of the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act of 2006.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 47531 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``47529, or 47530'' and inserting 
     ``47529, 47530, or 47534''.
       (2) Section 47532 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``47528-47531'' and inserting ``47528 
     through 47531 or 47534''.
       (3) The chapter analysis for chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 47533 the following:

``47534. Prohibition on operating certain aircraft weighing 75,000 
              pounds or less not complying with stage 3 noise levels''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________