[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8383-8393]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 2818. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on automatic shower 
cleaners; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would temporarily reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners on 
behalf of S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, WI.
  I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in 
our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has 
enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps 
manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2000, Wisconsin has been hit 
hard, losing 90,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing sector 
is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and higher standards of 
living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. 
And the production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so 
many American families healthy and strong.
  This legislation would reduce the duty on automatic shower cleaners, 
an input S.C. Johnson refines to make high quality and affordable 
shower cleaners that eliminate the build-up of tough soap scum, mold, 
and mildew stains for the U.S. market. S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 
as a parquet flooring company and today is one of the world's leading 
manufacturers of household products including Ziploc storage 
containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect repellant, and Glade 
fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 12,000 people and provides 
products in more than 110 countries around the world. In January of 
2006, S.C. Johnson was awarded the Ron Brown Award for Corporate 
Leadership for its outstanding achievements in employee and community 
relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. ELECTRIC AUTOMATIC SHOWER CLEANERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:


``      9902.98.08      Bath and shower     2.1%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         cleaner electric                                                   31/2009
                         device that
                         dispenses a
                         dilute solution
                         of detergents and
                         bleach
                         alternative into
                         a shower
                         enclosure using a
                         button activated,
                         battery powered
                         piston pump
                         controlled by a
                         microchip that
                         automatically
                         releases a
                         measured amount
                         of solution on
                         demand (provided
                         for in subheading
                         8509.80.00)......

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 2821. A bill to repeal the imposition of withholding on certain 
payments made to vendors by government entities; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2821, the 
Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006. Today, President Bush signed into 
law H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 
2005, and this afternoon, I am making good on a promise I made on the 
Senate floor last week--to repeal the expanded withholding tax 
contained in H.R. 4297 to ensure that the bill does what its title 
claims, that is, prevents tax Increases.
  Americans have been asking for tax relief. Congress answered this 
call, in part, when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and 
Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and 
dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts--
contained in H.R. 4297 will assist small businesses, encourage the kind 
of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure 
fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be 
left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy.
  Alongside these tax relief provisions, however, conferees inserted a 
sweeping new withholding requirement that will raise taxes by nearly $7 
billion. This bill seems to have a history of that. When the original 
tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, it contained a windfall 
profits tax provision

[[Page 8384]]

that would have imposed an additional $4.923 billion tax on the energy 
industry. I voted against it because the bill that was supposed to 
provide tax relief actually raised taxes. Although the conferees 
stripped this provision in conference, they replaced it with an even 
bigger tax hike--section 511's expanded withholding requirement.
  Section 511 of H.R. 4297 imposes a new mandatory 3 percent 
withholding requirement on all payments for goods and services made to 
Federal, State, and local contractors. The provision, which is the 
largest revenue raiser in the bill, represents a significant shift in 
U.S. tax policy.
  Withholding has not always been around. Despite predominant public 
opposition, Congress enacted mandatory withholding on Federal income 
tax in 1943 in order to fund World War II. As a result, tax collections 
jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to $43 billion in 1945. That is an 
increase of $35.7 billion in just 4 years. In congressional hearings on 
the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be 
``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of 
lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the 
tax burden on the public.
  Congress sought to expand withholding to dividends and interest in 
1982, and public opposition was so profound that it was repealed 1 year 
later. Now, proponents of section 511's expanded withholding 
requirement say that it is necessary to close a ``tax loophole'' that 
allows taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such 
``loophole''--the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has simply failed to 
do its job of collecting.
  Information-reporting requirements are already in place to assist the 
IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are required to make 
an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as 
individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency 
that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting 
the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be 
paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding 
would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers' 
dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of 
collecting them, too.
  The costs of section 511 are high--so high, in fact, that the 
Congressional Budget Office said that the provision constitutes an 
unfunded mandate on the State and local governments, exceeding the 
annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The 
provision will also cause the cost of doing business to go up. A 3-
percent withholding on multibillion dollar contracts--for as long as 15 
months, held interest-free--will affect cash flows, investment, and 
cause businesses to raise prices in order to make up for losses, 
thereby putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage. 
Consider the Federal contract totals for Idaho and California alone. In 
fiscal year 2004, Idaho's nondefense contracts totaled $1.1 billion, 
and in fiscal year 2005, the State's defense contracts added up to $154 
million. In fiscal year 2004, California's nondefense contracts totaled 
$9.4 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State had $30.9 billion in 
defense contracts.
  The bill that I am introducing today, the Withholding Tax Relief Act 
of 2006, will repeal the $7 billion withholding tax contained in H.R. 
4297. Tax relief should not be coupled with tax increases, and I will 
continue to work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's 
title, ``Tax Increase Prevention.'' This bill is a first step. I urge 
my colleagues to 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 text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2821

       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 ``Withholding Tax Relief Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN 
                   PAYMENTS MADE TO VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT 
                   ENTITIES.

       The amendment made by section 511 of the Tax Increase 
     Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such 
     amendment had never been enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, and 
        Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2825. A bill to establish grant programs to improve the health of 
border area residents and for bioterrorism preparedness in the border 
area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with 
Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer entitled the Border Health 
Security Act of 2006. This bill addresses the tremendous health 
problems confronting our nation's southwestern border.
  The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico 
Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 
100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international 
boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and 
New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a 
population of 12 million residents.
  The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 Native American 
tribes, and 4 States in the United States and six States in Mexico.
  Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The 
situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In 
the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the 
Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted 
funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, 
legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon, and Hutchison, was 
created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in 
funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican Government for 
administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and 
agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to 
take the next step and provide resources to address the problems.
  In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the United 
States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been 
designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people 
live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are 
unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard 
housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very 
high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the 
Nation.
  In a report earlier this year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties 
Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it 
would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to 
access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied 
health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, 
third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes.
  The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health 
problems with little or no resources.
  According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005 for 
the three-year average of 2002 to 2004, the states of Texas and New 
Mexico rank first and second as the states with the highest uninsured 
rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, 
respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had 
uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively.
  However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of 
uninsured are higher still than that in the four states overall. 
Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 
percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to 
the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE, 
the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4 
percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than

[[Page 8385]]

twice the United States rate of 14.2 percent.
  As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is 
characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and 
infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution 
of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, 
the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access 
to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus 
keeps the border communities at risk.''
  The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an 
agenda through its Health Border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among 
other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a 
primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 
percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce 
deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to 
diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 
percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; 
reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce 
the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of 
prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.
  However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that 
are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation 
I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer 
would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border 
Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to 
improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care 
services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
  These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities 
to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for 
the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary 
care and preventative health, public health and public health 
infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental 
health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence 
in the border region, medical and health services research, community 
health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including 
planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental 
health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with 
respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
CHIP.
  We would certainly expect those grants would be used for the purpose 
of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the Health 
Border 2010 initiative.
  In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for 
funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, 
preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.-
Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the 
establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate 
information quickly to health providers about emerging health care 
threats.
  Mr. President, on October 15, 2001, just one month after the 
September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to 
the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together 
an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The 
Commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the 
vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a 
bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of 
communities along the border and targets funding to those communities 
specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness.
  Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special 
one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and 
wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic 
development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States's second 
largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the 
busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often 
neglected.
  As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without 
increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and 
private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the 
border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in 
these areas.''
  I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original 
cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, 
Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of 
this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting 
funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its 
inception.
  I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for working with us 
on this important legislation and for their constant support over the 
years for the work of the Commission.
  I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress 
and ask for unanimous consent for a summary and the text of the bill to 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2825

       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 ``Border Health Security Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Border area.--The term ``border area'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``United States-Mexico Border Area'' in 
     section 8 of the United States-Mexico Border Health 
     Commission Act (22 U.S.C. 290n-6).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 3. BORDER HEALTH GRANTS.

       (a) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``eligible entity'' means a State, public institution of 
     higher education, local government, tribal government, 
     nonprofit health organization, or community health center 
     receiving assistance under section 330 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b), that is located in the border 
     area.
       (b) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under 
     subsection (f), the Secretary, acting through the United 
     States members of the United States-Mexico Border Health 
     Commission, shall award grants to eligible entities to 
     address priorities and recommendations to improve the health 
     of border area residents that are established by--
       (1) the United States members of the United States-Mexico 
     Border Health Commission;
       (2) the State border health offices; and
       (3) the Secretary.
       (c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires 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.
       (d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under subsection (b) shall use the grant funds for--
       (1) programs relating to--
       (A) maternal and child health;
       (B) primary care and preventative health;
       (C) public health and public health infrastructure;
       (D) health promotion;
       (E) oral health;
       (F) behavioral and mental health;
       (G) substance abuse;
       (H) health conditions that have a high prevalence in the 
     border area;
       (I) medical and health services research;
       (J) workforce training and development;
       (K) community health workers or promotoras;
       (L) health care infrastructure problems in the border area 
     (including planning and construction grants);
       (M) health disparities in the border area;
       (N) environmental health;
       (O) health education; and
       (P) outreach and enrollment services with respect to 
     Federal programs (including programs authorized under titles 
     XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 and 
     1397aa)); and
       (2) other programs determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (e) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Amounts provided to an 
     eligible entity awarded a grant under subsection (b) shall be 
     used to supplement and not supplant other funds available to 
     the eligible entity to carry out the activities described in 
     subsection (d).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2007 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year.

     SEC. 4. BORDER BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS GRANTS.

       (a) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``eligible entity'' means a

[[Page 8386]]

     State, local government, tribal government, or public health 
     entity.
       (b) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under 
     subsection (e), the Secretary shall award grants to eligible 
     entities for bioterrorism preparedness in the border area.
       (c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       (d) Uses of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under subsection (b) shall use the grant funds to, in 
     coordination with State and local bioterrorism programs--
       (1) develop and implement bioterror preparedness plans and 
     readiness assessments and purchase items necessary for such 
     plans;
       (2) coordinate bioterrorism and emergency preparedness 
     planning in the region;
       (3) improve infrastructure, including syndrome surveillance 
     and laboratory capacity;
       (4) create a health alert network, including risk 
     communication and information dissemination;
       (5) educate and train clinicians, epidemiologists, 
     laboratories, and emergency personnel; and
       (6) carry out such other activities identified by the 
     Secretary, the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission, 
     State and local public health offices, and border health 
     offices.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     succeeding fiscal year.

     SEC. 5. UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION ACT 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act (22 
     U.S.C. 290n et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 6. COORDINATION OF HEALTH SERVICES AND SURVEILLANCE.

       The Secretary may coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security in establishing a health alert system that--
       (1) alerts clinicians and public health officials of 
     emerging disease clusters and syndromes along the border 
     area; and
       (2) is alerted to signs of health threats or bioterrorism 
     along the border area.

     SEC. 7. BINATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine 
     for the conduct of a study concerning binational public 
     health infrastructure and health insurance efforts. In 
     conducting such study, the Institute shall solicit input from 
     border health experts and health insurance issuers.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services enters into the 
     contract under subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine 
     shall submit to the Secretary and the appropriate committees 
     of Congress a report concerning the study conducted under 
     such contract. Such report shall include the recommendations 
     of the Institute on ways to expand or improve binational 
     public health infrastructure and health insurance efforts.

     SEC. 8. PROVISION OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADVICE TO CONGRESS.

       Section 5 of the United States-Mexico Border Health 
     Commission Act (22 U.S.C. 290n-3) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Providing Advice and Recommendations to Congress.--A 
     member of the Commission, or an individual who is on the 
     staff of the Commission, may at any time provide advice or 
     recommendations to Congress concerning issues that are 
     considered by the Commission. Such advice or recommendations 
     may be provided whether or not a request for such is made by 
     a member of Congress and regardless of whether the member or 
     individual is authorized to provide such advice or 
     recommendations by the Commission or any other Federal 
     official.''.
                                  ____


                               Fact Sheet


                   border health security act of 2006

       Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), 
     Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced 
     the ``Border Health Security Act of 2006'' on May 17, 2006. 
     The legislation would improve the infrastructure, access, and 
     delivery of health care services to residents along the U.S.-
     Mexico border.
       The legislation would achieve these goals by--
       Improving Border Health Services: Provides authorization 
     for funding to states, local governments, tribal governments, 
     institutions of higher education, nonprofit health 
     organizations, or community health centers along the U.S.-
     Mexico border to improve infrastructure, access, and the 
     delivery of health care services.
       These grants are flexible and would allow the community to 
     establish its own priorities with which to spend these funds 
     for the following range of purposes: maternal and child 
     health, primary care and preventative health, public health 
     and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral 
     health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health 
     conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, 
     medical and health services research, community health 
     workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure (including 
     planning and construction grants), health disparities, 
     environmenta1 health, health education, and outreach and 
     enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
       Providing Border Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants: Provides 
     for $25 million in funding to states and local governments or 
     public health departments to improve the infrastructure, 
     preparedness, and education of health professionals along the 
     U.S.-Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This 
     includes the establishment of a health alert network to 
     identify and communicate information quickly to health 
     providers about emerging health care threats and coordination 
     of the system between the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
     Services (HHS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
       Reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission: 
     Provides for the reauthorization of the U.S.-Mexico Border 
     Health Commission at $10 million annually.
       Coordination and Study: The legislation also affirms that 
     recommendations and advice on how to improve border health 
     from the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission shall be 
     communicated to the Congress. And finally, the legislation 
     provides for a study of binational health insurance options 
     and barriers to improve coverage for people residing along 
     the border.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2826. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
and expand relief from the alternative minimum tax and to repeal the 
extension of the lower rates for capital gains and dividends for 2009 
and 2010; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, President Bush is signing H.R. 4297, 
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. I opposed 
this legislation because it contains the wrong priorities for America--
leaving behind working families and substantially adding to the 
deficit. This law chooses to extend the lower rates on capital gains 
and dividends for 2009 and 2010, but only addresses the individual 
alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 2006.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, those earning $200,000 
or more will receive 84 percent of the benefit of the capital gains tax 
cut and 63 percent of the benefit of the dividends tax cuts. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, 42.8 percent of taxpayers with 
income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be impacted by the AMT if the 
AMT is not addressed for 2007--a number that increases to 66 percent by 
2010. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation of Act of 2005 
extends a tax cut that does not expire to the end of 2008 with a price 
tag of $50 billion, but fails to protect the hard working families that 
will be impacted by the AMT. These families were never intended to be 
impacted by the AMT, a tax originally designed to prevent a small 
number of high income taxpayers from avoiding taxation.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that will address the AMT for 
2007 and repeal the lower tax rates on capital dividends for 2009 and 
2010. To calculate the AMT, individuals add back certain ``preference 
items'' to their regular tax liability. These include personal 
exemptions, the standard deduction, and the itemized deduction for 
state and local taxes. From this amount, taxpayers subtract the AMT 
exemption amount, commonly referred to as the ``patch'' which reverted 
to lower levels at the end of 2005. H.R. 4297 increased and extended 
the patch for 2006. The patch was increased in order to hold the same 
number of taxpayers harmless from the AMT in 2006 as in 2005.
  The problem with the AMT is that while the regular tax system is 
indexed for inflation, the AMT exemption amounts and tax brackets 
remain constant. This has the perverse consequence of punishing 
taxpayers for the mere fact their incomes rose due to inflation.
  A choice was made in 2001 to provide more tax cuts to those with 
incomes of over one million dollars rather than addressing a looming 
tax problem for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 did include a small adjustment to the AMT, 
but it was not

[[Page 8387]]

enough. We knew at the time that the number of taxpayers subject to the 
AMT would continue to rise steadily. The combination of lower tax cuts 
and a minor adjustment to the AMT would cause the AMT to explode. We 
are now approaching this explosion.
  My legislation extends and expands the AMT exemption amount for 2007 
to prevent additional taxpayers from being impacted by the AMT. Without 
increasing and extending the AMT exemption for 2007, an additional 3.2 
million taxpayers will be impacted by the AMT in 2007. In addition, the 
legislation will allow nonrefundable personal credits such as the 
higher education tax credits and the dependent care credit against the 
AMT for 2007. This legislation is offset by repealing the lower rates 
on capital gains and dividends.
  My colleagues in the majority argue that the extension of the capital 
gains and dividends benefits is necessary to provide investor 
certainty. But I believe that the certainty of working families worried 
about paying the AMT should come first. New data from the Joint 
Committee on Taxation requested by the Ways and Means Democratic 
Members shows that in 2007, 62 percent of all taxable capital gain 
income will be recognized by taxpayers liable for the minimum tax. 
Simply put, taxpayers forced to carry the AMT burden will not benefit 
from the lower capital gains and dividends rate.
  The AMT is a looming problem that is impacting hard-working families 
and for each year that we fail to address the AMT, it gets worse and 
more expensive. We need to address the AMT for 2007. My legislation is 
not a long-term cure to the AMT crisis, but it will provide certainty 
for next year to hard working families that will be impacted by the AMT 
just because of where they live and the number of children they have, 
and it will address the AMT in a revenue neutral manner for 2007 as 
well.
  The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 addresses 
the AMT for 2006, but at a price--providing a $42,000 tax cut to those 
making more than a million dollars a year. The AMT for 2006 could have 
been addressed in a bill that did not include the extension of 
additional tax cuts and it could have been offset. Instead, addressing 
the AMT for 2006 was included in a bill that will add far more than $70 
billion to the deficit.
  We all agree that the AMT should not be impacting families with 
incomes below $100,000. I am concerned that we will not address the AMT 
for 2007 in a timely and fiscally responsible manner. My bill does this 
and would give Congress time to work together in a bipartisan manner to 
find a fiscally responsible permanent solution to the AMT.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2826

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND INCREASE IN MINIMUM TAX RELIEF TO 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 55(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as amended by the Tax Increase Prevention and 
     Reconciliation Act of 2005, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$62,550 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``$66,100 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``$42,500 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``$45,900 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS AGAINST 
                   REGULAR AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by the Tax Increase 
     Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2007'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or 
     2007''.
       (b) Conforming Provisions.--
       (1) Section 30B(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for 2007.--For purposes of any taxable 
     year beginning during 2007, the credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) (after the application of paragraph (1)) shall 
     not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and 
     this subpart (other than this section and section 30C).''.
       (2) Section 30C(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for 2007.--For purposes of any taxable 
     year beginning during 2007, the credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) (after the application of paragraph (1)) shall 
     not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and 
     this subpart (other than this section).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXTENSION OF LOWER RATES FOR CAPITAL GAINS 
                   AND DIVIDENDS.

       The amendment made by section 102 of the Tax Increase 
     Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such 
     amendment had never been enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2827. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify 
the investigative authorities of the privacy officer of the Department 
of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Privacy 
Officer With Enhanced Rights Act of 2006, POWER Act. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senator Lieberman, the Ranking Member of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing this 
important legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3041. The 
POWER Act will strengthen the authority of the Department of Homeland 
Security, DHS, Chief Privacy Officer, CPO, and will provide a much 
needed check on government power.
  Americans have an expectation that their personal privacy will not be 
invaded and that their government will not misuse its powers. Democracy 
is founded on the principle that the people are the ultimate source of 
the Government's powers. Recent events validate the suspicions of our 
Nation's Founders against concentrating power into the hands of the few 
or in granting authority to those who are not accountable for how power 
is utilized. We need to consider the effects of intelligence and 
information gathering now that new government powers threaten to erode 
our most cherished freedoms and technological advances appear to 
outpace our ability to protect personal information.
  In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, new law enforcement 
strategies were created and information sharing between government 
agencies increased substantially. DHS was established to face new 
challenges and address new threats. However, we were concerned that the 
unprecedented size and reach of the new department could intrude on the 
values that our nation cherishes most dearly. We wanted DHS to 
accomplish its vital mission, but we had to make sure that it was not 
at the cost of our liberty.
  Times of crisis and unexpected trials do not excuse curtailment of 
our citizens' fundamental liberties, which is why the DHS CPO was 
created. The mission of the CPO is to ensure that the loss of the 
freedoms that define this country would not be sacrificed for increased 
vigilance against our adversaries. Although I voted against the 
Homeland Security Act, I was pleased to work with my colleagues to 
establish the CPO.
  The DHS CPO has three primary responsibilities: (1) assuring that new 
technologies and information gathering methods do not erode personal 
privacy; (2) evaluating the privacy impact of new government programs; 
and (3) investigating privacy complaints.
  However, the CPO's powers have proved to be inadequate. The major 
problem is that the CPO lacks subpoena power and, therefore, cannot 
fully investigate privacy violations. Instead, the CPO must rely on 
voluntary

[[Page 8388]]

submissions of information in order to conduct investigations which 
significantly weakens the office. We all remember the news accounts 
about how the CPO's requests for documents in her investigation of the 
Transportation Security Administration's, TSA, transfer of passenger 
data from a major commercial air carrier to the Defense Department were 
rebuffed repeatedly. Our bill will go a long way to ensure that such 
situations will not happen again.
  We are also concerned by the fact that the CPO cannot communicate 
directly with Congress, but instead, must report through DHS senior 
leadership. Similar to the Inspector General, the CPO can often be put 
at odds with those subject to investigation, so the authority to report 
directly to Congress and deliver unaltered findings is critical.
  The POWER Act will address these shortcomings by providing the CPO 
with the power to: access all records deemed necessary to do the job; 
undertake any privacy investigation that is appropriate for the office; 
subpoena documents from the private sector when necessary to fulfill 
the CPO's statutory mandate; and obtain sworn testimony.
  To provide independence for this position, the CPO will submit 
reports directly to Congress regarding the performance of his or her 
duties, without any prior comment or amendment by the DHS Secretary. In 
addition, our bill would protect the CPO from retaliation by mandating 
that the CPO cannot be removed from office without notifying the 
President and Congress of the reasons for removal.
  With concerns over the development of new data mining activities at 
the Department and the potential use of commercial data by TSA, it is 
essential now more than ever that the DHS CPO have the tools and 
authority to protect the personal information of all Americans. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill and a letter of support from the American Civil 
Liberties Union be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2827

       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 ``Privacy Officer With 
     Enhanced Rights Act of 2006'' or the ``POWER Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITIES OF THE PRIVACY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     142) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Appointment and Responsibilities.--
     '' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Authority To Investigate.--
       ``(1) In general.--The senior official appointed under 
     subsection (a) may--
       ``(A) have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, 
     documents, papers, recommendations, and other materials 
     available to the Department that relate to programs and 
     operations with respect to the responsibilities of the senior 
     official under this section;
       ``(B) make such investigations and reports relating to the 
     administration of the programs and operations of the 
     Department that are necessary or desirable as determined by 
     that senior official;
       ``(C) require by subpoena the production, by any person 
     other than a Federal agency, of all information, documents, 
     reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data 
     and documentary evidence necessary to performance of the 
     responsibilities of the senior official under this section; 
     and
       ``(D) administer to or take from any person an oath, 
     affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary to performance 
     of the responsibilities of the senior official under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Enforcement of subpoenas.--Any subpoena issued under 
     paragraph (1)(C) shall, in the case of contumacy or refusal 
     to obey, be enforceable by order of any appropriate United 
     States district court.
       ``(3) Effect of oaths.--Any oath, affirmation, or affidavit 
     administered or taken under paragraph (1)(D) by or before an 
     employee of the Privacy Office designated for that purpose by 
     the senior official appointed under subsection (a) shall have 
     the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or 
     before an officer having a seal of office.
       ``(c) Supervision.--
       ``(1) In general.--The senior official appointed under 
     subsection (a) shall report to, and be under the general 
     supervision of the Secretary.
       ``(2) Notification to congress.--If the Secretary removes 
     the senior official appointed under subsection (a) or 
     transfers that senior official to another position or 
     location within the Department, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) promptly submit a written notification of the removal 
     or transfer to Houses of Congress; and
       ``(B) include in any such notification the reasons for the 
     removal or transfer.
       ``(d) Reports by Senior Official to Congress.--The senior 
     official appointed under subsection (a) shall submit reports 
     directly to the Congress regarding performance of the 
     responsibilities of the senior official under this section, 
     without any prior comment or amendment by the Secretary, 
     Deputy Secretary, or any other officer or employee of the 
     Department or the Office of Management and Budget.''.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2006.
       Dear Senators Akaka and Lieberman: The American Civil 
     Liberties Union commends you for introducing the Privacy 
     Officer With Enhanced Rights Act (POWER Act). This 
     legislation and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 3041, 
     are an important step towards ensuring that the Department of 
     Homeland Security's Privacy Officer has all the tools needed 
     to carry out the mission Congress envisioned for the office 
     when it created the Department of Homeland Security 
     (``DHS''). The POWER Act will allow the Privacy Officer to 
     better protect the privacy rights of all Americans by 
     providing important oversight of DHS, which handles extensive 
     amounts of sensitive personal information on Americans.
       The original Congressional intention of the DHS Privacy 
     Officer's authority has not yet been achieved. The Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 mandated the creation of a senior 
     official to assume responsibility for DHS privacy policies. 
     Specifically, this official is to assure that new 
     technologies do not erode the personal privacy of Americans, 
     evaluate new proposals concerning the use of personal data, 
     assure that DHS is in full compliance with the Privacy Act of 
     1974, and to report to Congress on an annual basis any 
     activities that impact privacy including ``complaints of 
     privacy violations, implementation of the Privacy Act of 
     1974, internal controls, and other matters.''
       Congress, however, failed to endow this position with the 
     necessary investigative powers necessary to fulfill these 
     duties. Currently, the Privacy Officer must rely on voluntary 
     submission of information to conduct investigations. For 
     example, when the Privacy Officer attempted to investigate 
     the disclosure of JetBlue passenger information by the 
     Transportation Security Administration to the Department of 
     Defense, its requests for information were repeatedly 
     rebuffed preventing a comprehensive investigation. The 
     shortcomings of this process prevent the Privacy Officer from 
     being an effective advocate for the privacy rights of 
     Americans.
       The POWER Act addresses these problems by providing the 
     Privacy Officer with the tools and independence necessary to 
     conduct investigations and thereby fulfill the duties charged 
     to the position by Congress in 2002. This legislation 
     empowers the Privacy Officer to access all records deemed 
     necessary, undertake any investigation deemed appropriate, 
     subpoena documents, and obtain sworn testimony. This 
     legislation also directs the Privacy Officer to submit 
     reports directly to Congress without prior amendment by other 
     Department officials, helping to protect the position from 
     internal censorship.
       The POWER Act is an important piece of legislation to help 
     ensure that the privacy rights of Americans are not being 
     violated by their own government by providing crucial 
     internal oversight. We commend you for introducing this 
     important piece of legislation, the Privacy Officer With 
     Enhanced Rights Act, and pledge to work with you to ensure 
     its passage.
           Sincerely,
     Caroline Fredrickson,
       Director.
     Timothy Sparapani,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
        Landrieu, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 2828. A bill to provide for educational opportunities for all 
students in State public school systems, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, 
Clinton, Sarbanes, Akaka, Lautenberg, Kerry, Landrieu and Menendez to 
introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that every 
child in America has an equal opportunity to receive a good education.

[[Page 8389]]

  The Student Bill of Rights would achieve this goal by providing 
America's children with the key components of a solid education. These 
components include highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, 
small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date 
technology.
  Currently, Federal law requires that schools within the same district 
provide comparable educational services. The Student Bill of Rights 
would extend that basic guarantee of equal opportunity to the State 
level by requiring comparability of resources across school districts 
within a State.
  Over 50 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education struck down 
segregation in law. Over 50 years later, we know that just because 
there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist. 
Today, our education system remains largely separate and unequal.
  All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality 
teacher, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, 
goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from 
educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality 
education still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. 
In fact, the United States ranks at the bottom among developed 
countries in the disparity in the quality of schools available to 
wealthy and low-income children. This gap is simply unacceptable, and 
it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's 
ability to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating 
citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the 
global economy.
  Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic 
achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role 
models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we 
also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with 
the opportunity to receive a solid education.
  This bill is entirely consistent with America's historical commitment 
to equal opportunity. That is why 42 Senators voted for similar 
legislation in the 107th Congress. On the other hand, it would be 
inconsistent with America's principles to tolerate an educational 
system that provides meaningful educational opportunities for just a 
select few.
  The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or 
her ZIP code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and 
every child gets a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity 
for a successful future.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting 
the Student Bill of Rights and I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2828

       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 ``Student Bill of Rights''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings and purposes.

               TITLE I--ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

Sec. 101. State public school systems.
Sec. 102. Fundamentals of educational opportunity.

                     TITLE II--STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 201. State accountability plan.
Sec. 202. Consequences of failure to meet requirements.

              TITLE III--REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC

Sec. 301. Annual report on State public school systems.

                            TITLE IV--REMEDY

Sec. 401. Civil action for enforcement.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Rulemaking.
Sec. 503. Construction.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A high-quality, highly competitive education for all 
     students is imperative for the economic growth and 
     productivity of the United States, for its effective national 
     defense, and to achieve the historical aspiration to be one 
     Nation of equal citizens. It is therefore necessary and 
     proper to overcome the nationwide phenomenon of State public 
     school systems that do not meet the requirements of section 
     101(a), in which high-quality public schools typically serve 
     high-income communities and poor-quality schools typically 
     serve low-income, urban, rural, and minority communities.
       (2) In 2005, the National Academies found in their report 
     ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing 
     America for a Brighter Economic Future'' that the inadequate 
     preparation of kindergarten through grade 12 students in 
     science and mathematics, including the significant lack of 
     teachers qualified to teach these subjects, threatens the 
     economic prosperity of the United States. When students do 
     not receive quality mathematics and science preparation in 
     kindergarten through grade 12, they are not prepared to take 
     advanced courses in these subjects at the postsecondary 
     level, leaving the United States with a critical shortage of 
     scientists and engineers--a shortfall being filled by 
     professionals from other countries.
       (3) There exists in the States a significant educational 
     opportunity gap for low-income, urban, rural, and minority 
     students characterized by the following:
       (A) Continuing disparities within States in students' 
     access to the fundamentals of educational opportunity 
     described in section 102.
       (B) Highly differential educational expenditures (adjusted 
     for cost and need) among school districts within States.
       (C) Radically differential educational achievement among 
     students in school districts within States as measured by the 
     following:
       (i) Achievement in mathematics, reading or language arts, 
     and science on State academic assessments required under 
     section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) and on the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress.
       (ii) Advanced placement courses taken.
       (iii) SAT and ACT test scores.
       (iv) Dropout rates and graduation rates.
       (v) College-going and college-completion rates.
       (4) As a consequence of this educational opportunity gap, 
     the quality of a child's education depends largely upon where 
     the child's family can afford to live, and the detriments of 
     lower quality education are imposed particularly on--
       (A) children from low-income families;
       (B) children living in urban and rural areas; and
       (C) minority children.
       (5) Since 1785, Congress, exercising the power to admit new 
     States under section 3 of article IV of the Constitution (and 
     previously, the Congress of the Confederation of States under 
     the Articles of Confederation), has imposed upon every State, 
     as a fundamental condition of the State's admission, that the 
     State provide for the establishment and maintenance of 
     systems of public schools open to all children in such State.
       (6) Over the years since the landmark ruling in Brown v. 
     Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954), when a 
     unanimous Supreme Court held that ``the opportunity of an 
     education . . . , where the State has undertaken to provide 
     it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal 
     terms'', courts in 44 States have heard challenges to the 
     establishment, maintenance, and operation of State public 
     school systems that are separate and not educationally 
     adequate.
       (7) In 1970, the Presidential Commission on School Finance 
     found that significant disparities in the distribution of 
     educational resources existed among school districts within 
     States because the States relied too significantly on local 
     district financing for educational revenues, and that reforms 
     in systems of school financing would increase the Nation's 
     ability to serve the educational needs of all children.
       (8) In 1999, the National Research Council of the National 
     Academy of Sciences published a report entitled ``Making 
     Money Matter, Financing America's Schools'', which found that 
     the concept of funding adequacy, which moves beyond the more 
     traditional concepts of finance equity to focus attention on 
     the sufficiency of funding for desired educational outcomes, 
     is an important step in developing a fair and productive 
     educational system.
       (9) In 2001, the Executive Order establishing the 
     President's Commission on Educational Resource Equity 
     declared, ``A quality education is essential to the success 
     of every child in the 21st century and to the continued 
     strength and prosperity of our Nation. . . . [L]ong-standing 
     gaps in access to educational resources exist, including 
     disparities based on race and ethnicity.'' (Exec. Order No. 
     13190, 66 Fed. Reg. 5424 (2001)).
       (10) According to the Secretary of Education, as stated in 
     a letter (with enclosures) from the Secretary to States dated 
     January 19, 2001--
       (A) racial and ethnic minorities continue to suffer from 
     lack of access to educational

[[Page 8390]]

     resources, including ``experienced and qualified teachers, 
     adequate facilities, and instructional programs and support, 
     including technology, as well as . . . the funding necessary 
     to secure these resources''; and
       (B) these inadequacies are ``particularly acute in high-
     poverty schools, including urban schools, where many students 
     of color are isolated and where the effect of the resource 
     gaps may be cumulative. In other words, students who need the 
     most may often receive the least, and these students often 
     are students of color.''.
       (11) In the amendments made by the No Child Left Behind Act 
     of 2001, Congress--
       (A)(i) required each State to establish standards and 
     assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and 
     science; and
       (ii) required schools to ensure that all students are 
     proficient in mathematics, reading or language arts, and 
     science not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001-
     2002 school year, and held schools accountable for the 
     students' progress; and
       (B) required each State to describe how the State will help 
     local educational agencies and schools to develop the 
     capacity to improve student academic achievement.
       (12) The standards and accountability movement will succeed 
     only if, in addition to standards and accountability, all 
     schools have access to the educational resources necessary to 
     enable students to achieve.
       (13) Raising standards without ensuring access to 
     educational resources may in fact exacerbate achievement gaps 
     and set children up for failure.
       (14) According to the World Economic Forum's Global 
     Competitiveness Report 2001-2002, the United States ranks 
     last among developed countries in the difference in the 
     quality of schools available to rich and poor children.
       (15) The persistence of pervasive inadequacies in the 
     quality of education provided by State public school systems 
     effectively deprives millions of children throughout the 
     United States of the opportunity for an education adequate to 
     enable the children to--
       (A) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for 
     responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the 
     ability to participate fully in the political process through 
     informed electoral choice;
       (B) meet challenging student academic achievement 
     standards; and
       (C) be able to compete and succeed in a global economy.
       (16) Each State government has ultimate authority to 
     determine every important aspect and priority of the public 
     school system that provides elementary and secondary 
     education to children in the State, including whether 
     students throughout the State have access to the fundamentals 
     of educational opportunity described in section 102.
       (17) Because a well educated populace is critical to the 
     Nation's political and economic well-being and national 
     security, the Federal Government has a substantial interest 
     in ensuring that States provide a high-quality education by 
     ensuring that all students have access to the fundamentals of 
     educational opportunity described in section 102 to enable 
     the students to succeed academically and in life.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
       (1) To further the goals of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (as amended by the No Child Left Behind 
     Act of 2001), by holding States accountable for providing all 
     students with access to the fundamentals of educational 
     opportunity described in section 102.
       (2) To ensure that all students in public elementary 
     schools and secondary schools receive educational 
     opportunities that enable such students to--
       (A) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for 
     responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the 
     ability to participate fully in the political process through 
     informed electoral choice;
       (B) meet challenging student academic achievement 
     standards; and
       (C) be able to compete and succeed in a global economy.
       (3) To end the pervasive pattern of States maintaining 
     public school systems that do not meet the requirements of 
     section 101(a).

               TITLE I--ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

     SEC. 101. STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

       (a) Requirements.--Each State receiving Federal financial 
     assistance for elementary or secondary education shall ensure 
     that the State's public school system provides all students 
     within the State with an education that enables the students 
     to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for responsible 
     citizenship in a diverse democracy, including the ability to 
     participate fully in the political process through informed 
     electoral choice, to meet challenging student academic 
     achievement standards, and to be able to compete and succeed 
     in a global economy, through--
       (1) the provision of fundamentals of educational 
     opportunity described in section 102, at adequate or ideal 
     levels as defined by the State under section 201(a)(1)(A) to 
     students at each public elementary school and secondary 
     school in the State;
       (2) the provision of educational services in school 
     districts that receive funds under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311 et seq.) that are, taken as a whole, at least comparable 
     to educational services provided in school districts not 
     receiving such funds; and
       (3) compliance with any final Federal or State court order 
     in any matter concerning the adequacy or equitableness of the 
     State's public school system.
       (b) Determinations Concerning State Public School 
     Systems.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall determine whether each State maintains a 
     public school system that meets the requirements of 
     subsection (a). The Secretary may make a determination that a 
     State public school system does not meet such requirements 
     only after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
       (c) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish and make 
     available to the general public (including by means of the 
     Internet) the determinations made under subsection (b).

     SEC. 102. FUNDAMENTALS OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.

       The fundamentals of educational opportunity are the 
     following:
       (1) Highly qualified teachers, principals, and academic 
     support personnel.--
       (A) Highly qualified teachers.--Instruction from highly 
     qualified teachers in core academic subjects.
       (B) Highly qualified principals.--Leadership, management, 
     and guidance from principals who meet State certification 
     standards.
       (C) Highly qualified academic support personnel.--Necessary 
     additional academic support in reading or language arts, 
     mathematics, and other core academic subjects from personnel 
     who meet applicable State standards.
       (2) Rigorous academic standards, curricula, and methods of 
     instruction.--Rigorous academic standards, curricula, and 
     methods of instruction, as measured by the extent to which 
     each school district succeeds in providing high-quality 
     academic standards, curricula, and methods of instruction to 
     students in each public elementary school and secondary 
     school within the district.
       (3) Small class sizes.--Small class sizes, as measured by--
       (A) the average class size and the range of class sizes; 
     and
       (B) the percentage of elementary school classes with 17 or 
     fewer students.
       (4) Textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies.--
     Textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies, as measured 
     by--
       (A) the average age and quality of textbooks, instructional 
     materials, and supplies used in core academic subjects; and
       (B) the percentage of students who begin the school year 
     with school-issued textbooks, instructional materials, and 
     supplies.
       (5) Library resources.--Library resources, as measured by--
       (A) the size and qualifications of the library's staff, 
     including whether the library is staffed by a full-time 
     librarian certified under applicable State standards;
       (B) the size (relative to the number of students) and 
     quality (including age) of the library's collection of books 
     and periodicals; and
       (C) the library's hours of operation.
       (6) School facilities and computer technology.--
       (A) Quality school facilities.--Quality school facilities, 
     as measured by--
       (i) the physical condition of school buildings and major 
     school building features;
       (ii) environmental conditions in school buildings; and
       (iii) the quality of instructional space.
       (B) Computer technology.--Computer technology, as measured 
     by--
       (i) the ratio of computers to students;
       (ii) the quality of computers and software available to 
     students;
       (iii) Internet access;
       (iv) the quality of system maintenance and technical 
     assistance for the computers; and
       (v) the number of computer laboratory courses taught by 
     qualified computer instructors.
       (7) Quality guidance counseling.--Qualified guidance 
     counselors, as measured by the ratio of students to qualified 
     guidance counselors who have been certified under an 
     applicable State or national program.

                     TITLE II--STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 201. STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.

       (a) General Plan.--
       (1) Contents.--Each State receiving Federal financial 
     assistance for elementary and secondary education shall 
     annually submit to the Secretary a plan, developed by the 
     State educational agency, in consultation with local 
     educational agencies, teachers, principals, pupil services 
     personnel, administrators, other staff, and parents, that 
     contains the following:
       (A) A description of 2 levels of high access (adequate and 
     ideal) to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity 
     described in section 102 that measure how well the State, 
     through school districts, public elementary schools, and 
     public secondary schools, is achieving the purposes of this 
     Act by providing children with the resources they need to 
     succeed academically and in life.
       (B) A description of a third level of access (basic) to 
     each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity described 
     in section 102 that measures how well the State, through

[[Page 8391]]

     school districts, public elementary schools, and public 
     secondary schools, is achieving the purposes of this Act by 
     providing children with the resources they need to succeed 
     academically and in life.
       (C) A description of the level of access of each school 
     district, public elementary school, and public secondary 
     school in the State to each of the fundamentals of 
     educational opportunity described in section 102, including 
     identification of any such schools that lack high access (as 
     described in subparagraph (A)) to any of the fundamentals.
       (D) An estimate of the additional cost, if any, of ensuring 
     that the system meets the requirements of section 101(a).
       (E) Information stating the percentage of students in each 
     school district, public elementary school, and public 
     secondary school in the State that are proficient in 
     mathematics, reading or language arts, and science, as 
     measured through assessments administered as described in 
     section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(v)).
       (F) Information stating whether each school district, 
     public elementary school, and public secondary school in the 
     State is making adequate yearly progress, as defined under 
     section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)).
       (G)(i) For each school district, public elementary school, 
     and public secondary school in the State, information 
     stating--
       (I) the number and percentage of children counted under 
     section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
       (II) the number and percentage of students described in 
     section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(xiii)).
       (ii) For each such school district, information stating 
     whether the district is an urban, mixed, or rural district 
     (as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics).
       (2) Levels of access.--For purposes of the plan submitted 
     under paragraph (1)--
       (A) in defining basic, adequate, and ideal levels of access 
     to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity, each 
     State shall consider, in addition to the factors described in 
     section 102, the access available to students in the highest-
     achieving decile of public elementary schools and secondary 
     schools, the unique needs of low-income, urban and rural, and 
     minority students, and other educationally appropriate 
     factors; and
       (B) the levels of access described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (1) shall be aligned with the challenging 
     academic content standards, challenging student academic 
     achievement standards, and high-quality academic assessments 
     required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
       (3) Information.--The State shall annually disseminate to 
     parents, in an understandable and uniform format, the 
     descriptions, estimate, and information described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Accountability and Remediation.--
       (1) Accountability.--If the Secretary determines under 
     section 101(b) that a State maintains a public school system 
     that fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(1), the 
     plan submitted under subsection (a)(1) shall--
       (A) demonstrate that the State has developed and is 
     implementing a single, statewide State accountability system 
     that will be effective in ensuring that the State makes 
     adequate yearly progress under this Act (as defined by the 
     State in a manner that annually reduces the number of public 
     elementary schools and secondary schools in the State without 
     high access (as described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) to each of 
     fundamentals of educational opportunity described in section 
     102);
       (B) demonstrate, based on the levels of access described in 
     paragraph (1) what constitutes adequate yearly progress of 
     the State under this Act toward providing all students with 
     high access to the fundamentals of educational opportunity 
     described in section 102; and
       (C) ensure--
       (i) the establishment of a timeline for that adequate 
     yearly progress that includes interim yearly goals for the 
     reduction of the number of public elementary schools and 
     secondary schools in the State without high access to each of 
     the fundamentals of educational opportunity described in 
     section 102; and
       (ii) that not later than 12 years after the end of the 
     2005-2006 school year, each public elementary school in the 
     State shall have access to each of the fundamentals of 
     educational opportunity described in section 102.
       (2) Remediation.--If the Secretary determines under section 
     101(b) that a State maintains a public school system that 
     fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(2), not 
     later than 1 year after the Secretary makes the 
     determination, the State shall include in the plan submitted 
     under subsection (a)(1) a strategy to remediate the 
     conditions that caused the Secretary to make such 
     determination, not later than the end of the second school 
     year beginning after submission of the plan.
       (c) Amendments.--A State may amend the plan submitted under 
     subsection (a)(1) to improve the plan or to take into account 
     significantly changed circumstances.
       (d) Disapproval.--The Secretary may disapprove the plan 
     submitted under subsection (a)(1) (or an amendment to such a 
     plan) if the Secretary determines, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing, that the plan (or amendment) is 
     inadequate to meet the requirements described in subsections 
     (a) and (b).
       (e) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--A State may request, and the Secretary may 
     grant, a waiver of the requirements of subsections (a) and 
     (b) for 1 year for exceptional circumstances, such as a 
     precipitous decrease in State revenues, or another 
     circumstance that the Secretary determines to be exceptional, 
     that prevents a State from complying with the requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       (2) Contents of waiver request.--A State that requests a 
     waiver under paragraph (1) shall include in the request--
       (A) a description of the exceptional circumstance that 
     prevents the State from complying with the requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (b); and
       (B) a plan that details the manner in which the State will 
     comply with such requirements by the end of the waiver 
     period.

     SEC. 202. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Interim Yearly Goals.--
       (1) In general.--For a fiscal year and a State described in 
     section 201(b)(1), the Secretary shall withhold from the 
     State 2.75 percent of funds otherwise available to the State 
     for the administration of Federal elementary and secondary 
     education programs, for each covered goal that the Secretary 
     determines the State is not meeting during that year.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered 
     goal'', used with respect to a fiscal year, means an interim 
     yearly goal described in section 201(b)(1)(C)(i) that is 
     applicable to that year or a prior fiscal year.
       (b) Consequences of Nonremediation.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, if the Secretary determines that a 
     State required to include a strategy under section 201(b)(2) 
     continues to maintain a public school system that does not 
     meet the requirements of section 101(a)(2) at the end of the 
     second school year described in section 201(b)(2), the 
     Secretary shall withhold from the State not more than 33\1/3\ 
     percent of funds otherwise available to the State for the 
     administration of programs authorized under the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) 
     until the Secretary determines that the State maintains a 
     public school system that meets the requirements of section 
     101(a)(2).
       (c) Consequences of Noncompliance With Court Orders.--If 
     the Secretary determines under section 101(b) that a State 
     maintains a public school system that fails to meet the 
     requirements of section 101(a)(3), the Secretary shall 
     withhold from the State not more than 33\1/3\ percent of 
     funds otherwise available to the State for the administration 
     of programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
       (d) Disposition of Funds Withheld.--
       (1) Determination.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     Secretary withholds funds from a State under this section, 
     the Secretary shall determine whether the State has corrected 
     the condition that led to the withholding.
       (2) Disposition.--
       (A) Correction.--If the Secretary determines under 
     paragraph (1), that the State has corrected the condition 
     that led to the withholding, the Secretary shall make the 
     withheld funds available to the State to use for the original 
     purpose of the funds during 1 or more fiscal years specified 
     by the Secretary.
       (B) Noncorrection.--If the Secretary determines under 
     paragraph (1), that the State has not corrected the condition 
     that led to the withholding, the Secretary shall allocate the 
     withheld funds to public school districts, public elementary 
     schools, or public secondary schools in the State that are 
     most adversely affected by the condition that led to the 
     withholding, to enable the districts or schools to correct 
     the condition during 1 or more fiscal years specified by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Availability.--Amounts made available or allocated 
     under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) shall remain 
     available during the fiscal years specified by the Secretary 
     under that subparagraph.

              TITLE III--REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC

     SEC. 301. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

       (a) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than October 1 of 
     each year, beginning the year after completion of the first 
     full school year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes a 
     full and complete analysis of the public school system of 
     each State.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The analysis conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) Public school system information.--The following 
     information related to the public school system of each 
     State:
       (A) The number of school districts, public elementary 
     schools, public secondary schools, and students in the 
     system.

[[Page 8392]]

       (B)(i) For each such school district and school--
       (I) information stating the number and percentage of 
     children counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
       (II) the number and percentage of students, disaggregated 
     by groups described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(3)(C)(xiii)).
       (ii) For each such district, information stating whether 
     the district is an urban, mixed, or rural district (as 
     defined by the National Center for Education Statistics).
       (C) The average per-pupil expenditure (both in actual 
     dollars and adjusted for cost and need) for the State and for 
     each school district in the State.
       (D) Each school district's decile ranking as measured by 
     achievement in mathematics, reading or language arts, and 
     science on State academic assessments required under section 
     1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) and on the National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress.
       (E) For each school district, public elementary school, and 
     public secondary school--
       (i) the level of access (as described in section 201(a)(1)) 
     to each of the fundamentals of educational opportunity 
     described in section 102;
       (ii) the percentage of students that are proficient in 
     mathematics, reading or language arts, and science, as 
     measured through assessments administered as described in 
     section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(v)); and
       (iii) whether the school district or school is making 
     adequate yearly progress--

       (I) as defined under section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)); 
     and
       (II) as defined by the State under section 201(b)(1)(A).

       (F) For each State, the number of public elementary schools 
     and secondary schools that lack, and names of each such 
     school that lacks, high access (as described in section 
     201(a)(1)(A)) to any of the fundamentals of educational 
     opportunity described in section 102.
       (G) For the year covered by the report, a summary of any 
     changes in the data required in subparagraphs (A) through (F) 
     for each of the preceding 3 years (which may be based on such 
     data as are available, for the first 3 reports submitted 
     under subsection (a)).
       (H) Such other information as the Secretary considers 
     useful and appropriate.
       (2) State actions.--For each State that the Secretary 
     determines under section 101(b) maintains a public school 
     system that fails to meet the requirements of section 101(a), 
     a detailed description and evaluation of the success of any 
     actions taken by the State, and measures proposed to be taken 
     by the State, to meet the requirements.
       (3) State plans.--A copy of each State's most recent plan 
     submitted under section 201(a)(1).
       (4) Relationship between compliance and achievement.--An 
     analysis of the relationship between meeting the requirements 
     of section 101(a) and improving student academic achievement, 
     as measured on State academic assessments required under 
     section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).
       (c) Scope of Report.--The report required under subsection 
     (a) shall cover the school year ending in the calendar year 
     in which the report is required to be submitted.
       (d) Submission of Data to Secretary.--Each State receiving 
     Federal financial assistance for elementary and secondary 
     education shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in 
     such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require, such 
     data as the Secretary determines to be necessary to make a 
     determination under section 101(b) and to submit the report 
     under this section. Such data shall include the information 
     used to measure the State's success in providing the 
     fundamentals of educational opportunity described in section 
     102.
       (e) Failure To Submit Data.--If a State fails to submit the 
     data that the Secretary determines to be necessary to make a 
     determination under section 101(b) regarding whether the 
     State maintains a public school system that meets the 
     requirements of section 101(a)--
       (1) such State's public school system shall be deemed not 
     to have met the applicable requirements until the State 
     submits such data and the Secretary is able to make such 
     determination under section 101(b); and
       (2) the Secretary shall provide, to the extent practicable, 
     the analysis required in subsection (a) for the State based 
     on the best data available to the Secretary.
       (f) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish and make 
     available to the general public (including by means of the 
     Internet) the report required under subsection (a).

                            TITLE IV--REMEDY

     SEC. 401. CIVIL ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT.

       A student or parent of a student aggrieved by a violation 
     of this Act may bring a civil action against the appropriate 
     official in an appropriate Federal district court seeking 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce the requirements 
     of this Act, together with reasonable attorney's fees and the 
     costs of the action.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Referenced terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', 
     ``secondary school'', ``local educational agency'', ``highly 
     qualified'', ``core academic subjects'', ``parent'', and 
     ``average per-pupil expenditure'' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (2) Federal elementary and secondary education programs.--
     The term ``Federal elementary and secondary education 
     programs'' means programs providing Federal financial 
     assistance for elementary or secondary education, other than 
     programs under the following provisions of law:
       (A) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
       (B) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
       (C) The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
       (D) The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et 
     seq.).
       (3) Public school system.--The term ``public school 
     system'' means a State's system of public elementary and 
     secondary education.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico.

     SEC. 502. RULEMAKING.

       The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out this 
     Act.

     SEC. 503. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a 
     jurisdiction to increase its property tax or other tax rates 
     or to redistribute revenues from such taxes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Carper, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Salazar, 
        Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Levin, 
        and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2829. A bill to reduce the addiction of the United States to oil, 
to ensure near-term energy affordability and empower American families, 
to accelerate clean fuels and electricity, to provide government 
leadership for clean and secure energy, to secure a reliable, 
affordable, and sustainable energy future, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that 
seeks to put America squarely on the path toward energy security for 
the 21st Century. Today, I am joined by a number of my colleagues in 
introducing the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy, or 
Clean EDGE, Act.
  Mr. President, this legislation is a sweeping proposal that 
incorporates the ideas of many of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle. It is our attempt to move America forward, on a pressing issue 
that--as we've said many times before--poses one of the greatest 
national security, economic and environmental challenges faced by our 
generation. I am talking about the issue of energy independence, and 
what it will take to put America on the right track.
  The legislation we are presenting today is the result of a good deal 
of work within our caucus. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, 
I speak from some experience when I say that developing a cohesive, 
national approach to energy policy is quite difficult. That is because, 
in so many instances, there are important issues of regional diversity 
that can divide us.
  Instead of immediately succumbing to those divisions, what we did 
when we began to work on this legislation was to start with a goal. 
Like the Manhattan Project that established America as the world's 
first nuclear power, and the Apollo Project that ensured America won 
the race to the moon, we recognized that initiatives of this magnitude 
must begin with a goal. When America sets a goal, America will achieve 
it. It takes leadership and resolve, and it takes the shared commitment 
of individual citizens to make it a truly national effort. But make no 
mistake: the people of the United States will rise to the challenge.
  Today, we can no longer ignore the enormous cost of America's 
dependence

[[Page 8393]]

on foreign oil. It has become a crisis for consumers; it poses an 
imminent risk to our national security; and it jeopardizes our long-
term economic competitiveness. That is why we believe that America must 
strive for an aggressive goal: to reduce our national petroleum 
consumption equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports by 2020, 
or about 6 million barrels of oil a day.
  Next, we set out to define agreed-upon principles about the best ways 
we could jumpstart our Nation's effort to achieve this goal. I am proud 
to say that we were able to achieve a good deal of consensus on these 
principles. Today, we sent the President a letter outlining them, which 
gained the signatures of 42 of my colleagues. These principles boil 
down to this:
  The United States must launch an aggressive effort designed to ensure 
that an increasing number of new vehicles sold in America can run on 
alternative fuels--starting with 25 percent in 2010--and must launch a 
bold initiative to invest in the infrastructure needed to promote real 
competition at the gas pump.
  The United States must ensure that consumers are protected from 
gasoline price-gouging and energy market manipulation.
  The United States must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and take 
steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions by diversifying electricity 
sources to include more renewable resources.
  The United States Governmment--our Nation's single largest energy 
consumer--must help lead the transition by adopting the best available 
fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies to reduce its 
petroleum consumption by 20 percent over the next 5 years, and by 40 
percent by 2020.
  The United States must level the playing field for new renewable and 
energy efficiency technologies by providing incentives for consumers 
and manufacturers to develop and deploy the next generation of fuel 
efficient vehicles, and by ensuring that major oil companies pay their 
fair share in taxes and royalties owed to the American public.
  These are the principles that guided us as we crafted the Clean EDGE 
Act. This legislation is a starting point, as we try to advance the 
dialogue about what it will take to put America on the path toward 
energy independence.
  There are provisions contained in this bill that we know can garner 
broad bipartisan support. There are others that may not have been 
possible to enact, before America started waking up to the costs of our 
energy independence. And there are other ideas that require broader 
debate and close scrutiny within the Senate Committees of jurisdiction. 
The Senate should work its will.
  But once again, that is the point of this legislation: to start the 
process; to jump-start the debate, and outline a vision of where this 
country needs to go to secure our future.
  As we have come together on this side of the aisle in recognition of 
the need to address the pressing issue of energy security, I know I 
speak for a number of my colleagues when I say I believe it is possible 
to come together in a bipartisan manner to pass energy legislation this 
summer. It is possible, if the Senate decides to put politics and 
partisan rancor aside. We can roll up our sleeves and get to work on 
crafting a real energy security plan that brings out the best in 
America. That process would also bring out the best in the Senate.
  So I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and look forward 
to working with my colleagues across the aisle in further developing an 
energy independence plan for America.

                          ____________________