[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5540-5568]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 765. A bill to establish a grant program to improve high school 
graduation rates and prepare students for college and work; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to talk about education, something 
many in this body take very seriously. I rise today to address the 
Nation's dropout crisis. Each day that our schools are open, 
approximately 7,000 students drop out of high school. That is 1.2 
million students annually who do not complete their high school 
education. Almost a third of American students who

[[Page 5541]]

enter high school in the ninth grade drop out of school and never 
receive their high school diploma.
  I know our students, our schools, our communities can do better. To 
ensure that these young people have a better future and that America 
maintains its competitiveness in a global economy, I suggest to all my 
colleagues that we must do better.
  According to a Manhattan Institute study, the high school graduation 
rate for the class of 2003 nationwide was only 70 percent. Thirty 
percent of our students in this country do not cross the goal line of 
graduation. Even more alarming, however, is that high school graduation 
rates for subgroups of students in 2003 were for White students, 78 
percent; African Americans, 55 percent; Hispanics, 53 percent.
  Graduating from high school is a 50-50 proposition in 930 of our high 
schools in our country. Fifty percent of the students in 930 schools do 
not get their high school diplomas. In 2,000 high schools, it is a 60-
40 proposition. Sixty percent are going to get their diploma, 40 
percent will not get their diploma.
  Just last week, my home State of North Carolina released its most 
current data on our State's dropout crisis. Our statistics, likewise, 
point to an urgent need to pay attention to our public high schools and 
these students.
  North Carolina's statewide graduation rate was 68 percent. Yet for 
Black students, that rate falls to 60 percent; for low-income students, 
55 percent; and for Hispanic students, 52 percent. Nearly 80 percent of 
the Nation's high schools that produce the highest number of dropouts 
are in 15 States, and I am embarrassed at the fact that North Carolina 
is one of them.
  To retain our competitive edge in the world economy, America's youths 
must be prepared for the jobs of today and the jobs of the future, jobs 
which increasingly require a postsecondary education. Unfortunately, in 
2003, 3.5 million Americans ages 16 to 25 did not have a high school 
diploma and were not enrolled in school.
  Individuals without a high school diploma experience higher rates of 
unemployment, incarceration, and are more likely to live in poverty and 
receive public assistance than individuals with at least a high school 
diploma.
  We know the statistics, but they are worth repeating. Mr. President, 
4 out of every 10 people ages 16 to 24 without a high school diploma 
receive some type of government assistance. A high school dropout is 
eight times more likely to be incarcerated than a person with a high 
school diploma.
  I am fortunate to represent a State with a rich history in its 
commitment to higher education. The State of North Carolina is the home 
of the Nation's first State university, the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill, which welcomed students for the first time to 
its campus on January 15, 1795. All total, North Carolina has 127 
degree-granting institutions of higher education--75 public and 52 
private. However, North Carolina and the rest of the country cannot 
rest on their laurels with their higher education systems. We should be 
and are proud of our high college-going rate in North Carolina. Yet 
while 64 percent of recent North Carolina high school graduates go on 
to college, that number is far too low.
  There is no silver bullet that will fix our educational system, 
including high school reform which many have talked about. I hope more 
and better research will give us a better direction and maybe better 
answers, but until then, there are a number of things that we can and 
we should be doing to improve what is a problem that must be addressed.
  In particular, we know the three Rs to making our public high schools 
work better for today's students are rigor, relevance, and 
relationships. Today, Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico and I are 
introducing bipartisan legislation, the Graduate for a Better Future 
Act. This is to help turn the tide of our Nation's dropout crisis.
  Senator Bingaman has been a stalwart leader in the Senate on issues 
relating to dropout prevention. I am proud to join him in an effort to 
lower high school dropout rates and to raise high school graduation and 
college-going rates.
  This legislation will create a competitive grant program targeted at 
school districts and high schools with the lowest graduation rates, 
focused on those three Rs of high school reform: rigor, relevance, and 
relationships.
  Funds under this act would be used for models of excellence for 
academically challenging high schools to prepare all students for 
college and for work; to offer academic catchup programs for those 
students who enter high school and do not meet proficient levels in 
mathematics, reading, language arts, or science that enable such 
students to meet proficient levels and remain on track to graduate from 
high school with a regular high school degree; to implement early 
warning systems to quickly identify students at risk of dropping out, 
especially systems that track student absenteeism, one of the greatest 
predictors that a student may drop out of high school; to implement 
comprehensive college guidance programs that ensure all students and 
their parents are regularly notified of high school graduation 
requirements, college requirements for entry, and provide guidance and 
assistance to students in applying for postsecondary education and in 
applying for Federal financial assistance and other State, local, and 
private financial aid and scholarships; to implement a program that 
offers all students opportunities for work-based and experiential 
learning experiences, such as job shadowing, internships, and community 
service so that students make the connection between what they are 
learning in school and how that applies to the workplace that we want 
them to be in; and to implement a student advisement program in which 
all students are assigned to and have regular meetings with an academic 
teacher adviser.
  A recent survey of high school dropouts by Civic Enterprises presents 
a picture of the American high school dropout that is surprising to 
many. I know it surprised me. Eighty-eight percent of those students 
who dropped out of high school had passing grades when they dropped 
out. Let me say that again. Eighty-eight percent of the students who 
dropped out of high school had passing grades which would have enabled 
them to complete their high school diploma. But they dropped out. 
Fifty-eight percent dropped out with 2 or fewer years to complete high 
school; 66 percent said they would have worked harder if expectations 
had been higher; 81 percent recognized that a high school diploma was 
absolutely vital to their success in life; and 74 percent said they 
would have stayed in school if they had it to do all over again.
  Mr. President, this is the point where we get a redo. We get an 
opportunity to make sure students get an opportunity in the next 
generation so they don't make the same mistakes the last ones did.
  Over the past 25 years, the difference in earnings between workers 
with lower and higher levels of education has grown. As my home State 
of North Carolina has experienced, gone are the days when an individual 
with only a high school diploma or GED can find a high-paying job in 
industries such as manufacturing, textiles, or furniture.
  The global economy has changed the marketplace, and the competition 
is no longer the person who sits next to us. It is the person who 
graduates from the school we will never hear about or have an 
opportunity to visit.
  We know more education pays off. Over his or her lifetime, an 
individual without a high school diploma will earn approximately $1.1 
million less than an individual with a bachelor's degree, $1.5 million 
less than an individual with a master's degree, and $2.4 million less 
than an individual with a doctoral degree.
  What is the message to our children and our grandchildren? Is it that 
the future is more competitive than the past, that to be competitive in 
the job market means we have to raise our educational skills, and as 
parents and grandparents, we have to make it happen? The answer is yes.
  The Senate can no longer sit by and accept rates of 30 percent of our 
students who don't cross the goal line of high school and accept that 
without a

[[Page 5542]]

fight. We can do better, and we should do better.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and with my cosponsor, 
Senator Bingaman, to face our Nation's dropout crisis head on. This is 
a first start. This is the ability to educate parents and students 
about not only how we engage them in the proficiencies they need to be 
competitive but, more importantly, how we teach them that our 
expectations are greater than what they felt in the past.
  It is time that the Senate lead by example to begin to pass 
legislation that has a real impact on the high school graduation rates 
in this country; that we can look back and say it was this legislation 
that started the process, and it was quickly followed up with 
additional legislation that helps our youth compete, regardless of 
where that job is and regardless of who their competition is.
  As this legislation comes before the committee and comes to this 
floor, I urge my colleagues to pay particular attention to the impact 
it has on our children and our grandchildren but, more importantly, on 
our competitiveness in the future.
  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. 765

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Graduate 
     for a Better Future Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents to this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purposes.
Sec. 4. Definitions.
Sec. 5. Program authorized.
Sec. 6. Reporting and accountability.
Sec. 7. Evaluation and report.
Sec. 8. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The high school graduation rate for the class of 2003 
     was only 70 percent nationwide. Thus, almost \1/3\ of 
     American students who enter high school in 9th grade drop out 
     of school and never receive a high school diploma.
       (2) Large disparities exist in the high school graduation 
     rates among various subgroups of students. Although the high 
     school graduation rate for white students was 78 percent in 
     2003, the rate for African American students was only 55 
     percent, and the rate for Hispanic students was only 53 
     percent.
       (3) For students in approximately 2,000 high schools across 
     the United States, the chance of graduating from high school 
     is less than 60 percent.
       (4) In 2003, 3,500,000 Americans ages 16 to 25 did not have 
     a high school diploma and were not enrolled in school.
       (5) To retain its competitive edge in the world economy, it 
     is essential that America's youth be prepared for the jobs of 
     today and for the jobs of the future. Such jobs increasingly 
     require a post-secondary education.
       (6) Individuals without a high school diploma experience 
     higher rates of unemployment, incarceration, living in 
     poverty, and receiving public assistance than individuals 
     with at least a high school diploma.
       (7) Over his or her lifetime, an individual without a high 
     school diploma will earn approximately $1,100,000 less than 
     an individual with a bachelor's degree, $1,500,000 less than 
     an individual with a master's degree, and $2,400,000 less 
     than an individual with a doctoral degree.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to create models of excellence for academically 
     rigorous high schools, including early college high schools, 
     in order to prepare all students for college and work;
       (2) to raise high school graduation rates and college-going 
     rates;
       (3) to reduce college remediation rates;
       (4) to create a seamless curriculum between high school and 
     college;
       (5) to improve teaching and curricula to make high school 
     more rigorous and relevant;
       (6) to improve instruction and access to supports for 
     struggling high school students;
       (7) to improve communication between parents, students, and 
     schools; and
       (8) to create, implement, and utilize early warning systems 
     to help identify students at risk of dropping out of high 
     school, especially systems that monitor student absenteeism.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       (1) Advanced placement or international baccalaureate 
     course.--The term ``Advanced Placement or International 
     Baccalaureate course'' means a course of college-level 
     instruction provided to middle school or secondary school 
     students, terminating in an examination administered by the 
     College Board or the International Baccalaureate 
     Organization.
       (2) College-going rate.--The term ``college-going rate'' 
     means the percentage of high school graduates who enroll at 
     an institution of higher education in the school year 
     immediately following graduation from high school.
       (3) Dual credit courses.--The term ``dual credit course'' 
     means a college course that--
       (A) may be taken at a high school or at an institution of 
     higher education;
       (B) is taught by--
       (i) college faculty; or
       (ii) high school faculty with credentials that the eligible 
     entity determines are appropriate; and
       (C) the successful completion of which can earn high school 
     academic credit as well as college academic credit.
       (4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (A) a State educational agency;
       (B) a national, regional, or statewide nonprofit 
     organization with expertise and experience in working with 
     local educational agencies and high schools to raise high 
     school academic achievement, high school graduation rates, 
     and college-going rates; or
       (C) a partnership consisting of a State educational agency 
     and an entity described in subparagraph (B).
       (5) Eligible local educational agency.--The term ``eligible 
     local educational agency'' means a local educational agency 
     with a high school graduation rate of 60 percent or less--
       (A) in the aggregate; or
       (B) applicable to 2 or more of the following subgroups of 
     high school students served by the local educational agency:
       (i) Economically disadvantaged students.
       (ii) Students from major racial or ethnic groups.
       (6) High school.--The term ``high school'' means a 
     nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including 
     a public charter high school, that provides high school 
     education, as determined under State law.
       (7) High school graduation rate.--The term ``high school 
     graduation rate'' means the percentage of students who 
     graduate from high school with a regular diploma in the 
     standard number of years as measured by a valid and reliable 
     measure of high school graduation rates, such as the averaged 
     freshman graduation rate.
       (8) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (9) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).
       (10) Parent.--The term ``parent'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (11) Rigorous secondary school program of study.--The term 
     ``rigorous secondary school program of study'' means a 
     rigorous secondary school program of study recognized as such 
     by the Secretary for purposes of subparagraph (A)(i) or 
     (B)(i) of section 401A(c)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-1(c)(3)).
       (12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (13) State educational agency.--The term ``State 
     educational agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       (14) Student with a disability.--The term ``student with a 
     disability'' means a child with a disability, as defined in 
     section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).

     SEC. 5. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under section 8 
     for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to 
     enable eligible entities to award subgrants to eligible local 
     educational agencies for the authorized activities described 
     in subsection (d).
       (b) Duration.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary may award grants under this Act 
     (other than a planning grant under subsection (c)(3)) for a 
     period of not more than 6 years.
       (2) Subgrants.--An eligible entity may award subgrants 
     under this Act for a period of not more than 5 years.
       (c) Eligible Entity Authorized Activities.--
       (1) Distribution.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this Act--
       (A) shall reserve not more than 15 percent of the grant 
     funds to carry out the activities described in paragraphs (2) 
     through (5); and
       (B) shall use not less than 85 percent of the grant funds 
     to award subgrants, on a competitive basis, to eligible local 
     educational agencies to enable the eligible local educational 
     agencies to carry out the authorized activities described in 
     subsection (d).

[[Page 5543]]

       (2) State level planning and administration.--An eligible 
     entity that receives a grant under this Act may use the grant 
     funds reserved under paragraph (1)(A) for planning and 
     administration, including--
       (A) evaluating applications from eligible local educational 
     agencies;
       (B) administering the distribution of subgrants to eligible 
     local educational agencies; and
       (C) assessing and evaluating, on a regular basis, eligible 
     local educational agency activities carried out under this 
     Act, including regularly evaluating the academic rigor of 
     courses at high schools in the State that receive funding 
     under this Act.
       (3) Local educational agency planning grants.--
       (A) In general.--From amounts reserved under paragraph 
     (1)(A), an eligible entity may award a planning grant to an 
     eligible local educational agency.
       (B) Amount.--An eligible entity shall award each planning 
     grant under this paragraph in the amount of $10,000.
       (C) Duration and use of planning grant funds.--Each 
     planning grant shall be--
       (i) awarded for a period of 1 year;
       (ii) nonrenewable; and
       (iii) used to plan and apply for a subgrant awarded under 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       (4) Technical assistance for local educational agencies.--
     An eligible entity that receives a grant under this Act may 
     use the grant funds reserved under paragraph (1)(A) for 
     technical assistance, including--
       (A) assisting eligible local educational agencies in 
     accomplishing the tasks required to implement a program under 
     this Act;
       (B) implementing a program of professional development for 
     teachers and administrators, in high schools that receive 
     funding under this Act, that prepares teachers and 
     administrators to implement the authorized activities 
     described in subsection (d); and
       (C) assisting eligible local educational agencies in 
     designing a program to be assisted under this Act.
       (5) Reporting.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this Act may use the grant funds reserved under 
     paragraph (1)(A) for annually providing the Secretary with a 
     report on the implementation of this section as required 
     under section 6.
       (d) Eligible Local Educational Agency Authorized 
     Activities.--Each eligible local educational agency receiving 
     a subgrant under this Act, shall use the subgrant funds to 
     carry out each of the following activities:
       (1) To implement a college-preparatory curriculum for all 
     students in a high school served by the eligible local 
     educational agency under this Act (and for students with 
     disabilities in accordance with the individualized education 
     program of the student) that is, at a minimum, aligned with a 
     rigorous secondary school program of study.
       (2) To implement accelerated academic catch-up programs, 
     for students who enter high school not meeting proficient 
     levels of academic achievement in mathematics, reading or 
     language arts, or science, that enable such students to meet 
     the proficient levels of achievement and remain on track to 
     graduate from high school on time with a regular high school 
     diploma.
       (3) To implement an early warning system to quickly 
     identify students at risk of dropping out of high school, 
     including systems that track student absenteeism.
       (4) To implement a system of student and classroom progress 
     monitoring, which may include the adoption and use of 
     diagnostic or formative assessments that--
       (A) measure student academic progress in the core academic 
     areas; and
       (B) may identify areas in which students need additional 
     academic assistance and support.
       (5) To implement a comprehensive college guidance program 
     that--
       (A) will ensure that all students in a high school served 
     by the eligible local educational agency under this Act, and 
     their parents, are regularly notified throughout the 
     students' time in high school, of high school graduation 
     requirements and college entrance requirements; and
       (B) provides guidance and assistance to students in 
     applying to an institution of higher education and in 
     applying for Federal financial aid assistance and other 
     State, local, and private financial aid assistance and 
     scholarships.
       (6) To implement a program that offers, all students in a 
     high school served by the eligible local educational agency 
     under this Act, opportunities for work-based and experiential 
     learning experiences, such as job-shadowing, internships, and 
     community service.
       (7) To implement a program that ensures that all students 
     in a high school served by the eligible local educational 
     agency under this Act, have access to and enroll in courses 
     in which the students may earn college credit for courses 
     taken while in high school, such as a dual credit course, or 
     an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate course.
       (8) To implement a program of student advisement in which 
     all students in a high school served by the eligible local 
     educational agency under this Act are assigned and have 
     regular meetings with an academic teacher advisor.
       (9) To implement a program of teacher professional 
     development and institutional leadership that includes use of 
     diagnostic and formative assessments to identify student and 
     teacher needs, to assess classroom practice, and to improve 
     classroom instruction.
       (e) Applications.--
       (1) Eligible entity.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. 
     Each application shall--
       (A) include a description of how subgrants made by the 
     eligible entity under this Act will meet the requirements 
     described in subsection (d);
       (B) include a description of the peer review process the 
     eligible entity shall use to evaluate applications from 
     eligible local educational agencies;
       (C) contain an assurance that the eligible entity, and any 
     eligible local educational agencies receiving a subgrant from 
     that eligible entity, will, if requested, participate in the 
     independent evaluation under section 7(1);
       (D) describe how the eligible entity will use grant funds 
     received under this section;
       (E) describe how the eligible entity will assist eligible 
     local educational agencies that receive planning grant funds 
     or subgrant funds under this Act in securing any necessary 
     waivers from the State educational agency that may be 
     required to carry out the requirements of this Act, such as 
     waivers with respect to budgeting, school structure, 
     staffing, and flexible use of resources and time; and
       (F) describe how the eligible entity will assess and 
     evaluate, on a regular basis, eligible local educational 
     agency activities carried out under this Act, including 
     regularly evaluating the academic rigor of courses at high 
     schools in the State that receive funding under this Act.
       (2) Eligible local educational agency.--Each eligible local 
     educational agency desiring a subgrant under this section 
     shall submit an application to the eligible entity at such 
     time and in such manner as the eligible entity may require. 
     Each application shall--
       (A) include a description of each high school that will 
     receive funding from the eligible local educational agency 
     under this Act, including such high school graduation, 
     academic achievement, demographic, and socioeconomic data as 
     the eligible entity may request;
       (B) contain an assurance that academic merit tests will not 
     be used to determine student enrollment in each such high 
     school;
       (C) contain a description of specific outreach and 
     recruitment efforts at each such high school that will be 
     undertaken for student populations historically 
     underrepresented at institutions of higher education;
       (D) contain an assurance that a college-preparatory 
     curriculum will be offered to all students at each such high 
     school (and to students with disabilities in accordance with 
     the individualized education program of the student), that 
     is, at a minimum, aligned with a rigorous secondary school 
     program of study;
       (E) include a comprehensive description of how curriculum 
     at each such high school will be developed, structured, and 
     delivered;
       (F) include clearly delineated benchmarks for improved 
     student academic achievement, high school graduation rates, 
     and college-going rates at each such high school;
       (G) include a description of assessments that will be used 
     at each such high school, including assessments for school 
     accountability purposes and student progress monitoring 
     purposes;
       (H) contain a comprehensive plan for professional 
     development at each such high school that includes intended 
     changes in teaching practices that will result in improved 
     student academic achievement, high school graduation rates, 
     and college-going rates;
       (I) include a detailed description of work-based and 
     experiential learning experiences that will be offered for 
     all students at each such high school, such as job shadowing, 
     internships, and community service;
       (J) contain an assurance that all students at each such 
     high school will be assigned and have regular access to an 
     academic teacher advisor;
       (K) contain an assurance that the eligible local 
     educational agency will grant each such high school any 
     necessary waivers from local educational agency policies and 
     rules that may be required to carry out the requirements of 
     this Act, such as waivers with respect to budgeting, school 
     structure, staffing, and flexible use of resources and time;
       (L) include a plan that details how programs assisted under 
     this Act will be sustained after the end of subgrant funding 
     under this Act;
       (M) in the case of dual credit courses and early college 
     high schools, contain formal agreements between the eligible 
     local educational agency and institutions of higher education 
     that detail shared responsibility for each such high school 
     and students at the high school;
       (N) include a description of school staffing considerations 
     and how teachers will be selected for each such high school;
       (O) include a detailed plan of the college awareness 
     program at each such high school that addresses applying for 
     admission to an

[[Page 5544]]

     institution of higher education and applying for financial 
     aid; and
       (P) contain an assurance that the eligible local 
     educational agency will report to the eligible entity all 
     data necessary for the eligible entity's report under section 
     6.
       (f) Matching Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each eligible 
     entity that receives a grant under this section shall 
     provide, toward the cost of the activities assisted under the 
     grant, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 100 
     percent of the amount of the grant.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or part of the 
     matching requirement described in paragraph (1) for any 
     fiscal year for an eligible entity if the Secretary 
     determines that applying the matching requirement to such 
     eligible entity would result in serious hardship or an 
     inability to carry out the authorized activities described in 
     subsection (c).
       (3) Supplement not supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this Act shall be used to supplement, not supplant, other 
     Federal and State funds available to carry out the activities 
     described in subsection (d).

     SEC. 6. REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) Collection of Data.--Each eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this Act shall collect and report annually to the 
     Secretary such information on the results of the activities 
     assisted under the grant as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require, including information on--
       (1) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and graduate from high school on 
     time with a regular high school diploma;
       (2) the number and percentage of students, at each grade 
     level, in the State who are assisted under this Act and meet 
     or exceed State reading or language arts, mathematics, or 
     science standards, as measured by 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));
       (3) the number and percentage of students, at each grade 
     level, in the State who are assisted under this Act and are 
     on track to graduate from high school on time and with a 
     regular high school diploma;
       (4) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and participate in work-based and 
     experiential learning experiences, such as job shadowing, 
     internships, community service, and descriptive information 
     on the types of experiences in which such students 
     participated;
       (5) the number and percentage of students, in grades 11 and 
     12, in the State who are assisted under this Act and enrolled 
     in not less than 2 of the following:
       (A) a dual credit course; or
       (B) an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate 
     course;
       (6) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and receive a passing grade or 
     higher for a dual credit course, or an Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate course;
       (7) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and apply to an institution of 
     higher education while still in high school;
       (8) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and are accepted to an 
     institution of higher education while still in high school;
       (9) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and enroll in an institution of 
     higher education in the school year immediately following the 
     students' high school graduation;
       (10) the number and percentage of students in the State who 
     are assisted under this Act and enrolled in remedial 
     mathematics or English courses during their freshman year at 
     an institution of higher education;
       (11) the number and percentage of students, in grade 10, in 
     the State who are assisted under this Act and take the PSAT; 
     and
       (12) the number and percentage of students, in grades 11 
     and 12, in the State who are assisted under this Act and take 
     the SAT or ACT, and the students' mean scores on such 
     assessments.
       (b) Reporting of Data.--Each eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall report the information 
     required under subsection (a) disaggregated in the same 
     manner as information is disaggregated under section 
     1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1)(C)(i)).

     SEC. 7. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

       From the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under 
     section 8, the Secretary shall reserve such sums as may be 
     necessary--
       (1) to conduct an independent evaluation, by grant or by 
     contract, of the program carried out under this Act, which 
     shall include an assessment of the impact of the program on 
     high school graduation rates, college-going rates, and 
     student academic achievement; and
       (2) to prepare and submit a report on the results of the 
     evaluation described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Reid, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 766. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide more effective remedies of victims of discrimination in the 
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Paycheck 
Fairness Act in recognition of Women's History Month. I'd like to thank 
my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Boxer, Cantwell, Dodd, 
Feingold, Klobuchar, Leahy, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Reid and 
Schumer for joining me in reintroducing this legislation to prevent, 
regulate and reduce pay discrimination for women across the country. I 
also want to acknowledge Congresswoman DeLauro for being the champion 
of this legislation in the House of Representatives.
  As America celebrates Women's History Month, it's important that we 
not only take pride in how far women have come in our lifetime, but 
also recognize the work we must continue to achieve true pay equity in 
this country. Over the past four decades, we have made tremendous 
strides in closing the wage gap between women and men. But research 
still shows us that pay discrimination continues to result in women 
earning less than men for performing the same job.
  Today, women working full time, year-round, still make only 77 cents 
for every dollar that a man makes--meaning that for every $100 she 
earns, a typical woman has $23 less to spend on groceries, housing, 
child care, or other expenses. Women of color fare even worse: African-
American women earn only 67 cents, and Latinas only 56 cents, for every 
$1.00 earned by white men.
  Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article 
entitled ``Women Post Job Gains, Data Show.'' The article showcased 
proof of progress over the past decade. From the year 2000 through 
2005, women posted a net increase of 1.7 million jobs paying above the 
median salary, while men gained a net increase of just over 220,000 of 
such positions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The issue 
of the wage gap, however, continues to affect women workers. In 2005, 
the median weekly pay for women was $486, or 73 percent of that for 
men--$663.
  While we often associate the pay wage with low-paying jobs, this 
inequity is not exclusive to the lower class. The New York Times 
recently reported that Wimbledon has finally agreed to pay its women 
tennis champions the same amount of prize money as their male 
counterparts. Last year's men's champion received $1.170 million, while 
the tournament's women's winner got $1.117 million.
  That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Paycheck Fairness 
Act--a bill that will build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act and 
help close the pay gap.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act has three main components.
  First, it prevents pay discrimination before it starts. By helping 
women strengthen their negotiation skills and providing outreach and 
technical assistance to employers to ensure they fairly evaluate and 
pay their employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act gives employers the 
tools they need to level the playing field between men and women.
  Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act creates strong penalties to punish 
those who do violate the act. By strengthening the penalties for 
employers who violate the Equal Pay Act, this bill sends a strong 
message--Equal Pay is a matter to be taken seriously.
  And finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the Federal 
Government, which should be a model employer when it comes to enforcing 
Federal employment laws, uses every tool

[[Page 5545]]

in its toolbox to ensure that women are paid the same amount as men for 
doing the same jobs.
  There is no question that we have come a long way since the Equal Pay 
Act became law 44 years ago. But we still have a lot of work to do.
  According to the National Committee on Pay Equity, working women 
stand to lose $250,000 over the course of their career because of 
unequal pay practices--a difference in pay that cannot be fully 
explained by experience, education, or other qualifications. And the 
pay gap follows women into retirement: unmarried women in the workforce 
today will receive, on average, about $8,000 per year less in 
retirement income than their male counterparts. As a result, millions 
of American families lose out because equal pay is still not a reality.
  It is my hope that many more of my colleagues will join me in 
recognizing this is more than a women's issue--it is a family issue. It 
is in all of our interests to allow women to support their families and 
to live with the dignity and respect accorded to fully engaged members 
of the workforce.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most profound economic shifts 
of the past century has been the entry of women into the workforce in 
tremendous numbers. In 1900, women made up only 18.4 percent of the 
working population. Today, more than 46 percent of the workers who 
claim a paycheck each week are women.
  Unfortunately, while America's women are working harder than ever, 
they are not being fairly compensated for their contributions to our 
economy.
  Discrimination against women continues to be prevalent in the 
workplace. Women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and 
the gap is even greater for women of color. In 2004, African-American 
women earned only 67 percent of the earnings of White men, and Hispanic 
women earned only 56 percent.
  Unfortunately, the problem is not getting better. The current wage 
gap of 23 cents is the same gap that existed in 2002. Since 1963, when 
the Equal Pay Act was passed, the wage gap has narrowed by less than 
half of a penny a year.
  While many argue that this persistent pay gap is a consequence of 
women's choosing to take time out of the workforce, the evidence shows 
that other factors, including discrimination, are a significant cause. 
In 2004, the Census Bureau concluded that the substantial gap in 
earnings between men and women could not completely be explained by 
differences in education, tenure in the workforce, or occupation. 
Similarly, a recent General Accounting Office report concluded that the 
difference in men and women's working patterns does not explain the 
entire disparity in their wages. Discrimination plays a significant 
role as well.
  It is appalling and unacceptable that such discrimination still 
exists in America, and we need to combat it with Federal legislation. 
The issue is simple fairness, and Congress needs to act.
  I am proud to join with Senator Clinton and Senator Harkin in 
introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act today. This important legislation 
will give America's working women the tools they need to fight for fair 
pay. It will make sure our fair pay laws apply to everyone, and it will 
strengthen the penalties for employers that are not playing by the 
rules.
  These important reforms are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to 
stand up for working women and end wage discrimination by passing the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 767. A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 768. A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis 
that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against 
Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude 
oil to the West.
  The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the 
price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per 
gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock 
market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of 
inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.
  Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight 
savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new 
Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum 
reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for 
automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.
  At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to 
increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company 
predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result 
of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled 
the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 
27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 
million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy-
saving measure ever adopted.
  Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. 
The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have 
paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a-
day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion 
annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the 
Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as 
well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin 
Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, 
especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die 
off.''
  At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, 
CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing 
deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so 
quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.
  Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by 
opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise 
to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate 
would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American 
jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that has ignored 
technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability 
to increase fuel efficiency.
  To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S. 
on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators 
Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the 
Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by 
establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per 
gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise 
and flexibility on how to meet those targets.
  Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have 
been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE 
standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can 
justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is 
technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of 
automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not 
cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value 
of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon 
which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the

[[Page 5546]]

presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the 
status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.
  Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs 
over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per 
day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just 
$2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. 
By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.
  The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and 
flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards 
for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet 
broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages 
companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small 
and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell 
small cars.
  In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced-
technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool 
parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry 
by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient 
vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced 
authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE 
compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain 
vehicle types and between manufacturers.
  Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage 
consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the 
current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more 
Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.
  By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act 
will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry 
launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will 
safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer 
pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public 
health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and 
support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bills were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 767

       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 ``Fuel Economy Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) United States dependence on oil imports imposes 
     tremendous burdens on the economy, foreign policy, and 
     military of the United States.
       (2) According to the Energy Information Administration, 60 
     percent of the crude oil and petroleum products consumed in 
     the United States between April 2005 and March 2006 
     (12,400,000 barrels per day) were imported. At a cost of $75 
     per barrel of oil, people in the United States remit more 
     than $600,000 per minute to other countries for petroleum.
       (3) A significant percentage of these petroleum imports 
     originate in countries controlled by regimes that are 
     unstable or openly hostile to the interests of the United 
     States. Dependence on production from these countries 
     contributes to the volatility of domestic and global markets 
     and the ``risk premium'' paid by consumers in the United 
     States.
       (4) The Energy Information Administration projects that the 
     total petroleum demand in the United States will increase by 
     23 percent between 2006 and 2026, while domestic crude 
     production is expected to decrease by 11 percent, resulting 
     in an anticipated 28 percent increase in petroleum imports. 
     Absent significant action, the United States will become more 
     vulnerable to oil price increases, more dependent upon 
     foreign oil, and less able to pursue national interests.
       (5) Two-thirds of all domestic oil use occurs in the 
     transportation sector, which is 97 percent reliant upon 
     petroleum-based fuels. Passenger vehicles, including light 
     trucks under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, represent 
     over 60 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector.
       (6) Corporate average fuel economy of all cars and trucks 
     improved by 70 percent between 1975 and 1987. Between 1987 
     and 2006, fuel economy improvements have stagnated and the 
     fuel economy of the United States is lower than many 
     developed countries and some developing countries.
       (7) Significant improvements in engine technology occurred 
     between 1986 and 2006. These advances have been used to make 
     vehicles larger and more powerful, and have not focused 
     solely on increasing fuel economy.
       (8) According to a 2002 fuel economy report by the National 
     Academies of Science, fuel economy can be increased without 
     negatively impacting the safety of cars and trucks in the 
     United States. Some new technologies can increase both safety 
     and fuel economy (such as high strength materials, unibody 
     design, lower bumpers). Design changes related to fuel 
     economy also present opportunities to reduce the 
     incompatibility of tall, stiff, heavy vehicles with the 
     majority of vehicles on the road.
       (9) Significant change must occur to strengthen the 
     economic competitiveness of the domestic auto industry. 
     According to a recent study by the University of Michigan, a 
     sustained gasoline price of $2.86 per gallon would lead 
     Detroit's Big 3 automakers' profits to shrink by 
     $7,000,000,000 as they absorb 75 percent of the lost vehicle 
     sales. This would put nearly 300,000 people in the United 
     States out of work.
       (10) Opportunities exist to strengthen the domestic vehicle 
     industry while improving fuel economy. A 2004 study performed 
     by the University of Michigan concludes that providing 
     $1,500,000,000 in tax incentives over a 10-year period to 
     encourage domestic manufacturers and parts facilities to 
     produce clean cars will lead to a gain of nearly 60,000 
     domestic jobs and pay for itself through the resulting 
     increase in domestic tax receipts.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF AUTOMOBILE AND PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.

       (a) Definition of Automobile.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 32901(a) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``rated at--'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``rated at not more than 10,000 pounds gross 
     vehicle weight.''.
       (2) Fuel economy information.--Section 32908(a) of such 
     title is amended, by striking ``section--'' and all that 
     follows through ``(2)'' and inserting ``section, the term''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) shall apply to model year 2010 and each subsequent 
     model year.
       (b) Definition of Passenger Automobile.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (16) of section 32901(a) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``, but does not include'' and 
     all that follows through the end and inserting a period.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to model year 2012 and each subsequent model 
     year.

     SEC. 4. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

       (a) Standards.--Section 32902 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before 
     Model Year 2013'' after ``Non-Passenger Automobiles''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection 
     shall not apply to automobiles manufactured after model year 
     2012.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before 
     Model Year 2013'' after ``Passenger Automobiles'';
       (B) by inserting ``and before model year 2010'' after 
     ``1984''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``Such standard 
     shall be increased by 4 percent per year for model years 2010 
     through 2012 (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon)'';
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Automobiles Manufactured After Model Year 2012.--
     (1)(A) Not later than 18 months before the beginning of each 
     model year after model year 2012, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall prescribe, by regulation--
       ``(i) an average fuel economy standard for automobiles 
     manufactured by a manufacturer in that model year; or
       ``(ii) based on 1 or more vehicle attributes that relate to 
     fuel economy--
       ``(I) separate average fuel economy standards for different 
     classes of automobiles; or
       ``(II) average fuel economy standards expressed in the form 
     of a mathematical function.
       ``(B)(i) Except as provided under paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     and subsection (d), average fuel economy standards under 
     subparagraph (A) shall attain a projected aggregate level of 
     average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for all 
     automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers for model year 
     2013.
       ``(ii) The projected aggregate level of average fuel 
     economy for model year 2014 and each model year thereafter 
     shall be increased by 4 percent over the level of the prior 
     model year (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon).
       ``(2) In addition to the average fuel economy standards 
     under paragraph (1), each manufacturer of passenger 
     automobiles shall be subject to an average fuel economy 
     standard for passenger automobiles manufactured

[[Page 5547]]

     by a manufacturer in a model year that shall be equal to 92 
     percent of the average fuel economy projected by the 
     Secretary for all passenger automobiles manufactured by all 
     manufacturers in that model year. An average fuel economy 
     standard under this subparagraph for a model year shall be 
     promulgated at the same time as the standard under paragraph 
     (1) for such model year.
       ``(3) If the actual aggregate level of average fuel economy 
     achieved by manufacturers for each of 3 consecutive model 
     years is 5 percent or more less than the projected aggregate 
     level of average fuel economy for such model year, the 
     Secretary may make appropriate adjustments to the standards 
     prescribed under this subsection.
       ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) and 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe 
     a lower average fuel economy standard for 1 or more model 
     years if the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, finds, by clear and convincing 
     evidence, that the minimum standards prescribed under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (3) or subsection (b) for each model 
     year--
       ``(i) are technologically not achievable;
       ``(ii) cannot be achieved without materially reducing the 
     overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the 
     United States and no offsetting safety improvements can be 
     practicably implemented for that model year; or
       ``(iii) is shown not to be cost effective.
       ``(B) If a lower standard is prescribed for a model year 
     under subparagraph (A), such standard shall be the maximum 
     standard that--
       ``(i) is technologically achievable;
       ``(ii) can be achieved without materially reducing the 
     overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the 
     United States; and
       ``(iii) is cost effective.
       ``(5) In determining cost effectiveness under paragraph 
     (4)(A)(iii), the Secretary of Transportation shall take into 
     account the total value to the United States of reduced 
     petroleum use, including the value of reducing external costs 
     of petroleum use, using a value for such costs equal to 50 
     percent of the value of a gallon of gasoline saved or the 
     amount determined in an analysis of the external costs of 
     petroleum use that considers--
       ``(A) value to consumers;
       ``(B) economic security;
       ``(C) national security;
       ``(D) foreign policy;
       ``(E) the impact of oil use--
       ``(i) on sustained cartel rents paid to foreign suppliers;
       ``(ii) on long-run potential gross domestic product due to 
     higher normal-market oil price levels, including inflationary 
     impacts;
       ``(iii) on import costs, wealth transfers, and potential 
     gross domestic product due to increased trade imbalances;
       ``(iv) on import costs and wealth transfers during oil 
     shocks;
       ``(v) on macroeconomic dislocation and adjustment costs 
     during oil shocks;
       ``(vi) on the cost of existing energy security policies, 
     including the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
       ``(vii) on the timing and severity of the oil peaking 
     problem;
       ``(viii) on the risk, probability, size, and duration of 
     oil supply disruptions;
       ``(ix) on OPEC strategic behavior and long-run oil pricing;
       ``(x) on the short term elasticity of energy demand and the 
     magnitude of price increases resulting from a supply shock;
       ``(xi) on oil imports, military costs, and related security 
     costs, including intelligence, homeland security, sea lane 
     security and infrastructure, and other military activities;
       ``(xii) on oil imports, diplomatic and foreign policy 
     flexibility, and connections to geopolitical strife, 
     terrorism, and international development activities;
       ``(xiii) on all relevant environmental hazards under the 
     jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       ``(xiv) on well-to-wheels urban and local air emissions of 
     `pollutants' and their uninternalized costs;
       ``(F) the impact of the oil or energy intensity of the 
     United States economy on the sensitivity of the economy to 
     oil price changes, including the magnitude of gross domestic 
     product losses in response to short term price shocks or long 
     term price increases;
       ``(G) the impact of United States payments for oil imports 
     on political, economic, and military developments in unstable 
     or unfriendly oil exporting countries;
       ``(H) the uninternalized costs of pipeline and storage oil 
     seepage, and for risk of oil spills from production, 
     handling, and transport, and related landscape damage; and
       ``(I) additional relevant factors, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(6) When considering the value to consumers of a gallon 
     of gasoline saved, the Secretary of Transportation may not 
     use a value that is less than the greatest of--
       ``(A) the average national cost of a gallon of gasoline 
     sold in the United States during the 12-month period ending 
     on the date on which the new fuel economy standard is 
     proposed;
       ``(B) the most recent weekly estimate by the Energy 
     Information Administration of the Department of Energy of the 
     average national cost of a gallon of gasoline (all grades) 
     sold in the United States; or
       ``(C) the gasoline prices projected by the Energy 
     Information Administration for the 20-year period beginning 
     in the year following the year in which the standards are 
     established.
       ``(7) In prescribing standards under this subsection, the 
     Secretary may prescribe standards for 1 or more model years.
       ``(8)(A) Not later than December 31, 2016, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     submit a joint report to Congress on the state of global 
     automotive efficiency technology development, and on the 
     accuracy of tests used to measure fuel economy of automobiles 
     under section 32904(c), utilizing the study and assessment of 
     the National Academy of Sciences referred to in subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into 
     appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the 
     technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and an 
     analysis and assessment of the accuracy of fuel economy tests 
     used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to measure fuel economy for each model under section 
     32904(c). Such analysis and assessment shall identify any 
     additional factors or methods that should be included in 
     tests to measure fuel economy for each model to more 
     accurately reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles. The 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall furnish, at the request 
     of the Academy, any information that the Academy determines 
     to be necessary to conduct the study, analysis, and 
     assessment under this subparagraph.
       ``(C) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       ``(i) the study of the National Academy of Sciences 
     referred to in subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) an assessment by the Secretary of Transportation of 
     technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and 
     opportunities to increase overall fleet safety.
       ``(D) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall 
     identify and examine additional opportunities to reform the 
     regulatory structure under this chapter, including approaches 
     that seek to merge vehicle and fuel requirements into a 
     single system that achieves equal or greater reduction in 
     petroleum use and environmental benefits than the amount of 
     petroleum use and environmental benefits that have been 
     achieved as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       ``(E) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) include conclusions reached by the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, as a result of detailed 
     analysis and public comment, on the accuracy of fuel economy 
     tests as in use during the period beginning on the date that 
     is 5 years before the completion of the report and ends on 
     the date of such completion;
       ``(ii) identify any additional factors that the 
     Administrator determines should be included in tests to 
     measure fuel economy for each model to more accurately 
     reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles; and
       ``(iii) include a description of options, formulated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator, to 
     incorporate such additional factors in fuel economy tests in 
     a manner that will not effectively increase or decrease 
     average fuel economy for any automobile manufacturer.''; and
       (4) in subsection (g)(2), by striking ``(and submit the 
     amendment to Congress when required under subsection (c)(2) 
     of this section)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 329 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 32903--
       (i) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears;
       (ii) by striking ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (c) or (d) 
     of section 32902'';
       (iii) by striking subsection (e); and
       (iv) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e); and
       (B) in section 32904--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears; and
       (II) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subject to'' and all 
     that follows through ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title'' 
     and inserting ``subject to subsection (c) or (d) of section 
     32902''; and

       (ii) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``under this 
     chapter'' and inserting ``under section 32902(c)(2)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to automobiles manufactured after model year 
     2012.

     SEC. 5. CREDIT TRADING, COMPLIANCE, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Credit Trading.--Section 32903(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Credits earned by a manufacturer under 
     this section may be sold to any other manufacturer and used 
     as if earned by that manufacturer, except that credits earned 
     by a manufacturer described in clause (i) of section 
     32904(b)(1)(A) may

[[Page 5548]]

     only be sold to a manufacturer described such clause (i) and 
     credits earned by a manufacturer described in clause (ii) of 
     such section may only be sold to a manufacturer described in 
     such clause (ii).'' after ``earns credits.'';
       (2) by striking ``3 consecutive model years immediately'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``model years''; and
       (3) effective for model years after 2012, the sentence 
     added by paragraph (1) of this subsection is amended by 
     inserting ``for purposes of compliance with section 
     32902(c)(2)'' after ``except that''.
       (b) Multi-Year Compliance Period.--Section 32904(c) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Administrator''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary, by rule, may allow a manufacturer to 
     elect a multi-year compliance period of not more than 4 
     consecutive model years in lieu of the single model year 
     compliance period otherwise applicable under this chapter.''.
       (c) Judicial Review of Regulations.--Section 32909(a)(1) of 
     such title is amended by striking out ``adversely affected 
     by'' and inserting ``aggrieved or adversely affected by, or 
     suffering a legal wrong because of,''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 768

       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 ``Fuel Economy Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) United States dependence on oil imports imposes 
     tremendous burdens on the economy, foreign policy, and 
     military of the United States.
       (2) According to the Energy Information Administration, 60 
     percent of the crude oil and petroleum products consumed in 
     the United States between April 2005 and March 2006 
     (12,400,000 barrels per day) were imported. At a cost of $75 
     per barrel of oil, people in the United States remit more 
     than $600,000 per minute to other countries for petroleum.
       (3) A significant percentage of these petroleum imports 
     originate in countries controlled by regimes that are 
     unstable or openly hostile to the interests of the United 
     States. Dependence on production from these countries 
     contributes to the volatility of domestic and global markets 
     and the ``risk premium'' paid by consumers in the United 
     States.
       (4) The Energy Information Administration projects that the 
     total petroleum demand in the United States will increase by 
     23 percent between 2006 and 2026, while domestic crude 
     production is expected to decrease by 11 percent, resulting 
     in an anticipated 28 percent increase in petroleum imports. 
     Absent significant action, the United States will become more 
     vulnerable to oil price increases, more dependent upon 
     foreign oil, and less able to pursue national interests.
       (5) Two-thirds of all domestic oil use occurs in the 
     transportation sector, which is 97 percent reliant upon 
     petroleum-based fuels. Passenger vehicles, including light 
     trucks under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, represent 
     over 60 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector.
       (6) Corporate average fuel economy of all cars and trucks 
     improved by 70 percent between 1975 and 1987. Between 1987 
     and 2006, fuel economy improvements have stagnated and the 
     fuel economy of the United States is lower than many 
     developed countries and some developing countries.
       (7) Significant improvements in engine technology occurred 
     between 1986 and 2006. These advances have been used to make 
     vehicles larger and more powerful, and have not focused 
     solely on increasing fuel economy.
       (8) According to a 2002 fuel economy report by the National 
     Academies of Science, fuel economy can be increased without 
     negatively impacting the safety of cars and trucks in the 
     United States. Some new technologies can increase both safety 
     and fuel economy (such as high strength materials, unibody 
     design, lower bumpers). Design changes related to fuel 
     economy also present opportunities to reduce the 
     incompatibility of tall, stiff, heavy vehicles with the 
     majority of vehicles on the road.
       (9) Significant change must occur to strengthen the 
     economic competitiveness of the domestic auto industry. 
     According to a recent study by the University of Michigan, a 
     sustained gasoline price of $2.86 per gallon would lead 
     Detroit's Big 3 automakers' profits to shrink by 
     $7,000,000,000 as they absorb 75 percent of the lost vehicle 
     sales. This would put nearly 300,000 people in the United 
     States out of work.
       (10) Opportunities exist to strengthen the domestic vehicle 
     industry while improving fuel economy. A 2004 study performed 
     by the University of Michigan concludes that providing 
     $1,500,000,000 in tax incentives over a 10-year period to 
     encourage domestic manufacturers and parts facilities to 
     produce clean cars will lead to a gain of nearly 60,000 
     domestic jobs and pay for itself through the resulting 
     increase in domestic tax receipts.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF AUTOMOBILE AND PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE.

       (a) Definition of Automobile.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 32901(a) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``rated at--'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``rated at not more than 10,000 pounds gross 
     vehicle weight.''.
       (2) Fuel economy information.--Section 32908(a) of such 
     title is amended, by striking ``section--'' and all that 
     follows through ``(2)'' and inserting ``section, the term''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) shall apply to model year 2010 and each subsequent 
     model year.
       (b) Definition of Passenger Automobile.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (16) of section 32901(a) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``, but does not include'' and 
     all that follows through the end and inserting a period.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to model year 2012 and each subsequent model 
     year.

     SEC. 4. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

       (a) Standards.--Section 32902 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before 
     Model Year 2013'' after ``Non-Passenger Automobiles''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection 
     shall not apply to automobiles manufactured after model year 
     2012.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``Manufactured Before 
     Model Year 2013'' after ``Passenger Automobiles'';
       (B) by inserting ``and before model year 2010'' after 
     ``1984''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``Such standard 
     shall be increased by 4 percent per year for model years 2010 
     through 2012 (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon)'';
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Automobiles Manufactured After Model Year 2012.--
     (1)(A) Not later than 18 months before the beginning of each 
     model year after model year 2012, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall prescribe, by regulation--
       ``(i) an average fuel economy standard for automobiles 
     manufactured by a manufacturer in that model year; or
       ``(ii) based on 1 or more vehicle attributes that relate to 
     fuel economy--
       ``(I) separate average fuel economy standards for different 
     classes of automobiles; or
       ``(II) average fuel economy standards expressed in the form 
     of a mathematical function.
       ``(B)(i) Except as provided under paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     and subsection (d), average fuel economy standards under 
     subparagraph (A) shall attain a projected aggregate level of 
     average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for all 
     automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers for model year 
     2013.
       ``(ii) The projected aggregate level of average fuel 
     economy for model year 2014 and each model year thereafter 
     shall be increased by 4 percent over the level of the prior 
     model year (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile per gallon).
       ``(2) In addition to the average fuel economy standards 
     under paragraph (1), each manufacturer of passenger 
     automobiles shall be subject to an average fuel economy 
     standard for passenger automobiles manufactured by a 
     manufacturer in a model year that shall be equal to 92 
     percent of the average fuel economy projected by the 
     Secretary for all passenger automobiles manufactured by all 
     manufacturers in that model year. An average fuel economy 
     standard under this subparagraph for a model year shall be 
     promulgated at the same time as the standard under paragraph 
     (1) for such model year.
       ``(3) If the actual aggregate level of average fuel economy 
     achieved by manufacturers for each of 3 consecutive model 
     years is 5 percent or more less than the projected aggregate 
     level of average fuel economy for such model year, the 
     Secretary may make appropriate adjustments to the standards 
     prescribed under this subsection.
       ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) and 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe 
     a lower average fuel economy standard for 1 or more model 
     years if the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, finds, by clear and convincing 
     evidence, that the minimum standards prescribed under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (3) or subsection (b) for each model 
     year--
       ``(i) are technologically not achievable;
       ``(ii) cannot be achieved without materially reducing the 
     overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the 
     United States and no offsetting safety improvements can be 
     practicably implemented for that model year; or
       ``(iii) is shown not to be cost effective.
       ``(B) If a lower standard is prescribed for a model year 
     under subparagraph (A), such standard shall be the maximum 
     standard that--
       ``(i) is technologically achievable;
       ``(ii) can be achieved without materially reducing the 
     overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the 
     United States; and
       ``(iii) is cost effective.

[[Page 5549]]

       ``(5) In determining cost effectiveness under paragraph 
     (4)(A)(iii), the Secretary of Transportation shall take into 
     account the total value to the United States of reduced 
     petroleum use, including the value of reducing external costs 
     of petroleum use, using a value for such costs equal to 50 
     percent of the value of a gallon of gasoline saved or the 
     amount determined in an analysis of the external costs of 
     petroleum use that considers--
       ``(A) value to consumers;
       ``(B) economic security;
       ``(C) national security;
       ``(D) foreign policy;
       ``(E) the impact of oil use--
       ``(i) on sustained cartel rents paid to foreign suppliers;
       ``(ii) on long-run potential gross domestic product due to 
     higher normal-market oil price levels, including inflationary 
     impacts;
       ``(iii) on import costs, wealth transfers, and potential 
     gross domestic product due to increased trade imbalances;
       ``(iv) on import costs and wealth transfers during oil 
     shocks;
       ``(v) on macroeconomic dislocation and adjustment costs 
     during oil shocks;
       ``(vi) on the cost of existing energy security policies, 
     including the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
       ``(vii) on the timing and severity of the oil peaking 
     problem;
       ``(viii) on the risk, probability, size, and duration of 
     oil supply disruptions;
       ``(ix) on OPEC strategic behavior and long-run oil pricing;
       ``(x) on the short term elasticity of energy demand and the 
     magnitude of price increases resulting from a supply shock;
       ``(xi) on oil imports, military costs, and related security 
     costs, including intelligence, homeland security, sea lane 
     security and infrastructure, and other military activities;
       ``(xii) on oil imports, diplomatic and foreign policy 
     flexibility, and connections to geopolitical strife, 
     terrorism, and international development activities;
       ``(xiii) on all relevant environmental hazards under the 
     jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       ``(xiv) on well-to-wheels urban and local air emissions of 
     `pollutants' and their uninternalized costs;
       ``(F) the impact of the oil or energy intensity of the 
     United States economy on the sensitivity of the economy to 
     oil price changes, including the magnitude of gross domestic 
     product losses in response to short term price shocks or long 
     term price increases;
       ``(G) the impact of United States payments for oil imports 
     on political, economic, and military developments in unstable 
     or unfriendly oil exporting countries;
       ``(H) the uninternalized costs of pipeline and storage oil 
     seepage, and for risk of oil spills from production, 
     handling, and transport, and related landscape damage; and
       ``(I) additional relevant factors, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(6) When considering the value to consumers of a gallon 
     of gasoline saved, the Secretary of Transportation may not 
     use a value that is less than the greatest of--
       ``(A) the average national cost of a gallon of gasoline 
     sold in the United States during the 12-month period ending 
     on the date on which the new fuel economy standard is 
     proposed;
       ``(B) the most recent weekly estimate by the Energy 
     Information Administration of the Department of Energy of the 
     average national cost of a gallon of gasoline (all grades) 
     sold in the United States; or
       ``(C) the gasoline prices projected by the Energy 
     Information Administration for the 20-year period beginning 
     in the year following the year in which the standards are 
     established.
       ``(7) In prescribing standards under this subsection, the 
     Secretary may prescribe standards for 1 or more model years.
       ``(8)(A) Not later than December 31, 2016, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     submit a joint report to Congress on the state of global 
     automotive efficiency technology development, and on the 
     accuracy of tests used to measure fuel economy of automobiles 
     under section 32904(c), utilizing the study and assessment of 
     the National Academy of Sciences referred to in subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into 
     appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the 
     technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and an 
     analysis and assessment of the accuracy of fuel economy tests 
     used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to measure fuel economy for each model under section 
     32904(c). Such analysis and assessment shall identify any 
     additional factors or methods that should be included in 
     tests to measure fuel economy for each model to more 
     accurately reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles. The 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall furnish, at the request 
     of the Academy, any information that the Academy determines 
     to be necessary to conduct the study, analysis, and 
     assessment under this subparagraph.
       ``(C) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       ``(i) the study of the National Academy of Sciences 
     referred to in subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) an assessment by the Secretary of Transportation of 
     technological opportunities to enhance fuel economy and 
     opportunities to increase overall fleet safety.
       ``(D) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall 
     identify and examine additional opportunities to reform the 
     regulatory structure under this chapter, including approaches 
     that seek to merge vehicle and fuel requirements into a 
     single system that achieves equal or greater reduction in 
     petroleum use and environmental benefits than the amount of 
     petroleum use and environmental benefits that have been 
     achieved as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       ``(E) The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) include conclusions reached by the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, as a result of detailed 
     analysis and public comment, on the accuracy of fuel economy 
     tests as in use during the period beginning on the date that 
     is 5 years before the completion of the report and ends on 
     the date of such completion;
       ``(ii) identify any additional factors that the 
     Administrator determines should be included in tests to 
     measure fuel economy for each model to more accurately 
     reflect actual fuel economy of automobiles; and
       ``(iii) include a description of options, formulated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator, to 
     incorporate such additional factors in fuel economy tests in 
     a manner that will not effectively increase or decrease 
     average fuel economy for any automobile manufacturer.''; and
       (4) in subsection (g)(2), by striking ``(and submit the 
     amendment to Congress when required under subsection (c)(2) 
     of this section)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 329 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 32903--
       (i) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears;
       (ii) by striking ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (c) or (d) 
     of section 32902'';
       (iii) by striking subsection (e); and
       (iv) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e); and
       (B) in section 32904--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears; and
       (II) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subject to'' and all 
     that follows through ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title'' 
     and inserting ``subject to subsection (c) or (d) of section 
     32902''; and

       (ii) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``under this 
     chapter'' and inserting ``under section 32902(c)(2)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to automobiles manufactured after model year 
     2012.

     SEC. 5. CREDIT TRADING, COMPLIANCE, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Credit Trading.--Section 32903(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Credits earned by a manufacturer under 
     this section may be sold to any other manufacturer and used 
     as if earned by that manufacturer, except that credits earned 
     by a manufacturer described in clause (i) of section 
     32904(b)(1)(A) may only be sold to a manufacturer described 
     such clause (i) and credits earned by a manufacturer 
     described in clause (ii) of such section may only be sold to 
     a manufacturer described in such clause (ii).'' after ``earns 
     credits.'';
       (2) by striking ``3 consecutive model years immediately'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``model years''; and
       (3) effective for model years after 2012, the sentence 
     added by paragraph (1) of this subsection is amended by 
     inserting ``for purposes of compliance with section 
     32902(c)(2)'' after ``except that''.
       (b) Multi-Year Compliance Period.--Section 32904(c) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Administrator''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary, by rule, may allow a manufacturer to 
     elect a multi-year compliance period of not more than 4 
     consecutive model years in lieu of the single model year 
     compliance period otherwise applicable under this chapter.''.
       (c) Judicial Review of Regulations.--Section 32909(a)(1) of 
     such title is amended by striking out ``adversely affected 
     by'' and inserting ``aggrieved or adversely affected by, or 
     suffering a legal wrong because of,''.

     SEC. 6. CONSUMER TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Elimination on Number of New Qualified Hybrid and 
     Advanced Lean Burn Technology Vehicles Eligible for 
     Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30B of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (f); and
       (B) by redesignating subsections (g) through (j) as 
     subsections (f) through (i), respectively.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Paragraphs (4) and (6) of section 30B(h) of such Code 
     are each amended by striking ``(determined without regard to 
     subsection

[[Page 5550]]

     (g))'' and inserting ``determined without regard to 
     subsection (f))''.
       (B) Section 38(b)(25) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 30B(g)(1)'' and inserting ``section 30B(f)(1)''.
       (C) Section 55(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 30B(g)(2)'' and inserting ``section 30B(f)(2)''.
       (D) Section 1016(a)(36) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 30B(h)(4)'' and inserting ``section 30B(g)(4)''.
       (E) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 30B(h)(9)'' and inserting ``section 30B(g)(9)''.
       (b) Extension of Alternative Vehicle Credit for New 
     Qualified Hybrid Motor Vehicles.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     30B(i) of such Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2011''.
       (c) Computation of Credit.--Section 30B of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``city'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``combined''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a) and (b) of this section shall apply to property placed in 
     service after December 31, 2007, in taxable years ending 
     after such date. The amendments made by subsection (c) shall 
     apply to vehicles acquired after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 7. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MOTOR VEHICLES MANUFACTURING 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 30D. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MOTOR VEHICLES MANUFACTURING 
                   CREDIT.

       ``(a) Credit Allowed.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to 35 percent of the qualified investment of 
     an eligible taxpayer for such taxable year.
       ``(b) Qualified Investment.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The qualified investment for any taxable 
     year is equal to the incremental costs incurred during such 
     taxable year--
       ``(A) to re-equip, expand, or establish any manufacturing 
     facility in the United States of the eligible taxpayer to 
     produce advanced technology motor vehicles or to produce 
     eligible components,
       ``(B) for engineering integration performed in the United 
     States of such vehicles and components as described in 
     subsection (d),
       ``(C) for research and development performed in the United 
     States related to advanced technology motor vehicles and 
     eligible components, and
       ``(D) for employee retraining with respect to the 
     manufacturing of such vehicles or components (determined 
     without regard to wages or salaries of such retrained 
     employees).
       ``(2) Attribution rules.--In the event a facility of the 
     eligible taxpayer produces both advanced technology motor 
     vehicles and conventional motor vehicles, or eligible and 
     non-eligible components, only the qualified investment 
     attributable to production of advanced technology motor 
     vehicles and eligible components shall be taken into account.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Advanced technology motor vehicle.--The term 
     `advanced technology motor vehicle' means--
       ``(A) any qualified electric vehicle (as defined in section 
     30(c)(1)),
       ``(B) any new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle (as defined 
     in section 30B(b)(3)),
       ``(C) any new advanced lean burn technology motor vehicle 
     (as defined in section 30B(c)(3)),
       ``(D) any new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 30B(d)(2)(A) and determined without regard to any 
     gross vehicle weight rating),
       ``(E) any new qualified alternative fuel motor vehicle (as 
     defined in section 30B(e)(4), including any mixed-fuel 
     vehicle (as defined in section 30B(e)(5)(B)), and
       ``(F) any other motor vehicle using electric drive 
     transportation technology (as defined in paragraph (3)).
       ``(2) Electric drive transportation technology.--The term 
     `electric drive transportation technology' means technology 
     used by vehicles that use an electric motor for all or part 
     of their motive power and that may or may not use off-board 
     electricity, such as battery electric vehicles, fuel cell 
     vehicles, engine dominant hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in 
     hybrid electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid fuel cell 
     vehicles.
       ``(3) Eligible components.--The term `eligible component' 
     means any component inherent to any advanced technology motor 
     vehicle, including--
       ``(A) with respect to any gasoline or diesel-electric new 
     qualified hybrid motor vehicle--
       ``(i) electric motor or generator;
       ``(ii) power split device;
       ``(iii) power control unit;
       ``(iv) power controls;
       ``(v) integrated starter generator; or
       ``(vi) battery;
       ``(B) with respect to any hydraulic new qualified hybrid 
     motor vehicle--
       ``(i) accumulator or other energy storage device;
       ``(ii) hydraulic pump;
       ``(iii) hydraulic pump-motor assembly;
       ``(iv) power control unit; and
       ``(v) power controls;
       ``(C) with respect to any new advanced lean burn technology 
     motor vehicle--
       ``(i) diesel engine;
       ``(ii) turbo charger;
       ``(iii) fuel injection system; or
       ``(iv) after-treatment system, such as a particle filter or 
     NOx absorber; and
       ``(D) with respect to any advanced technology motor 
     vehicle, any other component submitted for approval by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(4) Eligible taxpayer.--The term `eligible taxpayer' 
     means any taxpayer if more than 20 percent of the taxpayer's 
     gross receipts for the taxable year is derived from the 
     manufacture of motor vehicles or any component parts of such 
     vehicles.
       ``(d) Engineering Integration Costs.--For purposes of 
     subsection (b)(1)(B), costs for engineering integration are 
     costs incurred prior to the market introduction of advanced 
     technology vehicles for engineering tasks related to--
       ``(1) establishing functional, structural, and performance 
     requirements for component and subsystems to meet overall 
     vehicle objectives for a specific application,
       ``(2) designing interfaces for components and subsystems 
     with mating systems within a specific vehicle application,
       ``(3) designing cost effective, efficient, and reliable 
     manufacturing processes to produce components and subsystems 
     for a specific vehicle application, and
       ``(4) validating functionality and performance of 
     components and subsystems for a specific vehicle application.
       ``(e) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The credit 
     allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not 
     exceed the excess of--
       ``(1) the sum of--
       ``(A) the regular tax liability (as defined in section 
     26(b)) for such taxable year, plus
       ``(B) the tax imposed by section 55 for such taxable year 
     and any prior taxable year beginning after 1986 and not taken 
     into account under section 53 for any prior taxable year, 
     over
       ``(2) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and 
     sections 27, 30, and 30B for the taxable year.
       ``(f) Reduction in Basis.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     if a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure 
     with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of 
     such property which would (but for this paragraph) result 
     from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the 
     credit so allowed.
       ``(g) No Double Benefit.--
       ``(1) Coordination with other deductions and credits.--
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount of any 
     deduction or other credit allowable under this chapter for 
     any cost taken into account in determining the amount of the 
     credit under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of 
     such credit attributable to such cost.
       ``(2) Research and development costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     any amount described in subsection (b)(1)(C) taken into 
     account in determining the amount of the credit under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of determining the credit under section 
     41 for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Costs taken into account in determining base period 
     research expenses.--Any amounts described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(C) taken into account in determining the amount of the 
     credit under subsection (a) for any taxable year which are 
     qualified research expenses (within the meaning of section 
     41(b)) shall be taken into account in determining base period 
     research expenses for purposes of applying section 41 to 
     subsequent taxable years.
       ``(h) Business Carryovers Allowed.--If the credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) for a taxable year exceeds the 
     limitation under subsection (e) for such taxable year, such 
     excess (to the extent of the credit allowable with respect to 
     property subject to the allowance for depreciation) shall be 
     allowed as a credit carryback to each of the 15 taxable years 
     immediately preceding the unused credit year and as a 
     carryforward to each of the 20 taxable years immediately 
     following the unused credit year.
       ``(i) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section, rules 
     similar to the rules of section 179A(e)(4) and paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of section 41(f) shall apply.
       ``(j) Allocation of Credit to Purchasers.--
       ``(1) Election to allocate.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an eligible taxpayer, any 
     portion of the credit determined under subsection (a) for the 
     taxable year may, at the election of such taxpayer, be 
     apportioned among purchasers of qualifying vehicles from the 
     taxpayer in the taxable year (or in any year in which the 
     credit may be carried over).
       ``(B) Qualifying vehicles.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `qualifying vehicle' means an advanced 
     technology vehicle manufactured at a facility described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A).

[[Page 5551]]

       ``(C) Form and effect of election.--An election under 
     subparagraph (A) for any taxable year shall be made on a 
     timely filed return for such year. Such election, once made, 
     shall be irrevocable for such taxable year.
       ``(2) Treatment of taxpayer and purchasers.--The amount of 
     the credit apportioned to any purchaser under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall not be included in the amount determined under 
     subsection (a) with respect to the eligible taxpayer for the 
     taxable year; and
       ``(B) shall be treated as an amount determined under 
     subsection (a) for the taxable year of the purchaser which 
     ends in the calendar year of purchase.
       ``(3) Special rules for decrease in credits for taxable 
     year.--If the amount of the credit of an eligible taxpayer 
     determined under subsection (a) for a taxable year is less 
     than the amount of such credit shown on the return of the 
     taxpayer for such year, an amount equal to the excess of--
       ``(A) such reduction, over
       ``(B) the amount not apportioned to such purchasers under 
     paragraph (1) for the taxable year,
     shall be treated as an increase in tax imposed by this 
     chapter on the eligible taxpayer.
       ``(4) Written notice to purchasers.--If any portion of the 
     credit available under subsection (a) is allocated to 
     purchasers under paragraph (1), the eligible taxpayer shall 
     provide any purchaser receiving an allocation written notice 
     of the amount of the allocation. Such notice may be provided 
     either at the time of purchase or at any time not later than 
     60 days after the close of the calendar year in which the 
     vehicle is purchased.''
       ``(k) Election Not to Take Credit.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) for any property if the taxpayer 
     elects not to have this section apply to such property.
       ``(l) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     qualified investment after December 31, 2011.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1016(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (36), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (37) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(38) to the extent provided in section 30D(g).''.
       (2) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``30D(k),'' after ``30C(e)(5),''.
       (3) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 30C the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 30D. Advanced technology motor vehicles manufacturing credit.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts incurred in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
        Allard):
  S. 769. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to ensure that participants in the Troops to Teachers program may 
teach at a range of eligible schools; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Troops to 
Teachers Improvement Act of 2007, which will help more of our veterans 
and service members find second careers in our classrooms. This bill 
will expand the accessibility of this program, so that more military 
personnel will be able to enroll, receive $5,000 toward their teaching 
certification, and teach in a school near their home. I am proud to be 
joined by Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, and Senator Allard in 
introducing this legislation. On the House side, Congressman Petri and 
Congresswoman Matsui have introduced a companion to this bill.
  Since it was created in 1994, the Troops to Teachers program has 
helped place over 10,000 new teachers in classrooms around the country. 
The program provides guidance, teacher certification assistance, and 
bonuses for military personnel who give at least three years of service 
in the classroom.
  When Congress established the Troops to Teachers program, it created 
two levels of bonuses for military personnel and veterans who 
participate. An individual was eligible for a $5,000 stipend so long as 
he or she taught in any school in a district that received Title I 
funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This meant 
that an individual could teach three years in any of a vast majority of 
schools in the country and still be eligible for the $5,000 bonus.
  Congress allowed a person to receive an additional $5,000 if he or 
she taught three years in a school that served a high percentage of 
disadvantaged students. The total bonus of $10,000 was meant to draw 
these talented new teachers into schools that needed them most.
  For over a decade, this bonus structure was highly successful. In 
Colorado alone, the program has provided around 80 new hires a year to 
schools where new teachers are desperately needed.
  But in 2005, the Department of Education limited the number of 
schools that were eligible to participate and therefore made it more 
difficult for individuals to receive the baseline $5,000 bonus. The 
Department of Education was able to do this because when the Troops to 
Teachers program was reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, 
there was a mistake in the reauthorization language that created 
confusion about which schools an individual may teach in order to be 
eligible for the $5,000 bonus. As I pointed out a moment ago, when 
Congress created the Troops to Teachers program, it said that an 
individual could receive the bonus if he or she taught in a ``high-
need'' school, that is, in any school in a district that received Title 
1 funding. In Colorado, that meant that around 98 percent of school 
districts qualified. But, because Troops to Teachers was mistakenly 
placed in a section of NCLB with a different definition of ``high 
need,'' an individual can now only receive the $5,000 bonus if he or 
she teaches in a school that has more than 10,000 students or has more 
than 20 percent of its students from families below the poverty line.
  As a result of this change, enrollments in the Troops to Teachers 
program have dwindled over the past two years. Western and rural 
States, in particular, have been negatively impacted. In Colorado, new 
hires out of Troops to Teachers have dropped from 79 for the 2003-2004 
school year to 43 for the 2006-2007 school year.
  This drop-off in new hires from Troops to Teachers is problematic for 
several reasons. First, we should be finding ways of attracting new 
teachers to our classrooms, not devising bureaucratic barriers that 
keep them out. Experts predict that we will need approximately 2 
million new teachers in the next decade, and we need teachers who will 
give more than a year or two of service. Today, half of newcomers to 
the teaching profession last less than five years. The good news is 
that Troops to Teachers has an 83 percent retention rate for its 
teachers. A full 223 of the 343 original participants are still 
teaching today, more than a decade after the program's creation.
  Troops to Teachers also helps fill a need for diversity in the 
classroom--83 percent of program participants are male, compared to 18 
percent of teachers nationally, and 37 percent are ethnic minorities, 
compared to 15 percent of teachers nationally.
  The second problem with the new eligibility criteria is that it 
disproportionately hurts rural veterans and rural school districts. 
It's hard to find a school district in western Colorado or on the 
eastern plains that has 10,000 students. Are we expecting a Troops to 
Teacher participant living in Yuma County, population 9,789 to drive to 
Denver to teach in an eligible school there so they can receive the 
$5,000 stipend?
  The third problem with the new criteria is that it hurts retiring 
service members who want to pursue a second career in education. This 
country has a long history of providing educational benefits to our men 
and women in uniform through the 1944 GI Bill and successive 
legislation. Troops to Teachers furthers this great cause by helping 
our men and women in uniform extend their education and earn a teaching 
certificate. With over 1.3 million veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, 
many of whom are currently transitioning back to civilian life, we have 
an opportunity to bring the best and the brightest who are now serving 
in the military straight into the classrooms, where they can continue 
to extend their service to their country.

[[Page 5552]]

  The bill I'm introducing today provides a simple fix to the problems 
that arose for the Troops to Teachers program under the No Child Left 
Behind Act. The bill simply says that if there is no school within 50 
miles of the home of a Troops to Teachers participant, the individual 
may teach in any school in a district that receives Title 1 funding and 
receive the initial $5,000 bonus. This bill will allow thousands of 
retiring service members in rural communities to take advantage of the 
Troops to Teachers incentives and transition to a second career in the 
classroom. I also want to point out that this bill still prioritizes 
schools that fit the current definition of ``high need''--that is, 
schools with over 10,000 students or with 20 percent of its students 
from families below the poverty line--but it also provides an outlet if 
there are no schools in the area that fit those criteria. This bill 
does not affect the additional bonus that Troops to Teachers 
participants have always been able to receive if they teach in a school 
with a high percentage of disadvantaged students.
  I am hopeful that when we reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, 
we take another look at Troops to Teachers to help make it more 
accessible to veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, National Guard 
members, and reservists. Troops to Teachers is a good program that 
should be strengthened and supported when it is reauthorized. Yet, we 
shouldn't wait until then to fix this needless problem that is 
hampering the program's effectiveness today. I urge my colleagues to 
support this problem, today, by supporting the quick, straightforward 
solution that this bill provides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 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. 769

       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 ``Troops to Teachers 
     Improvement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 
                   UNDER TROOPS TO TEACHERS PROGRAM.

       Section 2304 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6674) is amended in subsection (a)(1)(B) 
     by striking ``for not less than 3 school years'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``for not less than 3 school years, to begin the 
     school year after obtaining that certification or licensing, 
     with a high-need local educational agency or public charter 
     school, as such terms are defined in section 2101 or, if 
     there is no high-need local educational agency or public 
     charter school for which the member is qualified to teach 
     within a 50-mile radius of the member's residence, then under 
     circumstances covered by section 2302(b)(2).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Carper, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 771. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to improve 
the nutrition and health of schoolchildren by updating the definition 
of ``food of minimal nutritional value'' to conform to current 
nutrition science and to protect the Federal investment in the national 
school lunch and breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of 
the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to 
growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just 
affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as 
well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today 
will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority 
children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At 
the same time, since 1963, rates of obesity have quadrupled among 
children ages 6 to 11 and tripled among children ages 12 to 19. Even 
our youngest children are not immune. Since 1971, among children ages 2 
to 5, obesity rates have tripled.
  There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and 
accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as 
well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been 
inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive 
nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability 
office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle 
schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending 
machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it 
is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are 
being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our 
schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute 
nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually 
detrimental to them.
  Not only does the overconsumption of these foods take a toll on the 
health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the 
investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year 
the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools 
for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program 
and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these 
meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines 
for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. 
However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these 
guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods 
typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it 
undermines the nearly $10 billion in federal reimbursements that we 
spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.
  Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food 
in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and 
authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and 
balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents 
would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending 
machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to 
restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools 
provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and 
development.
  What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food 
free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does 
it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar 
for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the 
expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch 
program?
  Today, along with my colleague Senator Murkowski of Alaska, I will 
introduce bipartisan legislation to address this problem--and to do 
what is right for the health of our kids. This bill has broad support 
in both the education and the public health communities and is 
supported by the National PTA, the National Education Association, the 
American Federation of Teachers, the American Medical Association, the 
Center for Science in the Public Interest, the School Nutrition 
Association, the Food Research and Action Center, the American Heart 
Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes 
Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others.
  The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 
does two very simple but important things:
  First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a 
rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in 
schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard 
that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, 
children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that 
time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between 
poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up 
with the science.
  Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the 
updated definition everywhere on school

[[Page 5553]]

grounds and throughout the school day. Currently, the Secretary can 
only issue rules limiting a very narrow class of foods, and then only 
stop their sales in the actual school cafeteria during the meal period. 
As a result, a child only needs to walk into the hall outside the 
cafeteria to buy a lunch consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy 
bar. This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink 
delivery truck through--literally. It is time to close it.
  The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of 
Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Murkowski of 
Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator 
Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator 
Schumer of New York, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator Carper 
of Delaware. The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts across 
ideological lines and shows that when the health of our children is at 
stake, we can put aside our differences in the interest of our 
children.
  This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and 
rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it 
is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable 
chronic diseases--the current generation of children could very well be 
the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. 
If this isn't a wake up call, I don't know what is.
  Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am 
pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch 
Protection Act of 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Vitter, 
        and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 772. A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide 
expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are 
contrary to the public interest with respect to railroads; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Antitrust 
Subcommittee, I believe it is my role to investigate and help end--
monopolistic practices that exploit American consumers. In that spirit, 
I rise today to introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Coleman, 
Feingold, Vitter and Rockefeller, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement 
Act of 2007. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust 
exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition.
  Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under the exemptions 
my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four Class I 
railroads providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail 
transportation. The lack of competition was recently documented in a 
Government Accountability Office October 2006 report. That report found 
that, ``concerns about competition and captivity, in the rail industry, 
remain as traffic is concentrated in fewer railroads.'' The report also 
stated that the Surface Transportation Board, the entity charged with 
ensuring that the industry remains competitive, has failed to do so. In 
August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District sent a 
letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and 
asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed.
  The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of 
``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the 
past several years, these captive shippers faced spiking rail rates. 
They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by 
the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are 
forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, 
to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust 
law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads 
are protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of 
antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.
  These exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in 
Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A 
coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations--
Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf 
River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are feeling the 
crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent 
increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to 
raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and 
affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin 
consumers feel the pinch.
  And similar stories exist across the country. That is why I'm joining 
with my colleagues to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act 
of 2007. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of 
free competition like all other businesses.
  The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad 
industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antirust enforcers. 
Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are 
reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that 
engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. 
Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board 
are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination 
of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will 
eliminate these exemptions.
  No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent 
decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--
deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the 
Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions 
remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the 
rules of fair competition.
  Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the 
purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, State 
attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-
competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of 
these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice 
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It 
will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad 
common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad 
collective ratemaking. It will allow State attorneys general and other 
private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive 
relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that 
leads to excessive and unreasonable rates.
  In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust 
exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of 
the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools 
to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. 
Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to 
deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.
  It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's 
freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in 
industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust 
laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end 
monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. 
The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads 
to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, 
a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or 
ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the 
antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in 
this industry today. I urge my colleagues to support the Railroad 
Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007.
  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. 772

       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 ``Railroad Antitrust 
     Enforcement Act of 2007''.

[[Page 5554]]



     SEC. 2. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.

       The proviso in section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 26) 
     ending with ``Code.'' is amended to read as follows: 
     ``Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed 
     to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association, 
     except the United States, to bring suit for injunctive relief 
     against any common carrier that is not a railroad subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board under 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 3. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS.

       The sixth undesignated paragraph of section 7 of the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18) is amended to read as follows:
       ``Nothing contained in this section shall apply to 
     transactions duly consummated pursuant to authority given by 
     the Secretary of Transportation, Federal Power Commission, 
     Surface Transportation Board (except for agreements described 
     in section 10706 of title 49, United States Code, and 
     transactions described in section 11321 of that title), the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission in the exercise of its 
     jurisdiction under section 10 (of the Public Utility Holding 
     Company Act of 1935), the United States Maritime Commission, 
     or the Secretary of Agriculture under any statutory provision 
     vesting such power in the Commission, Board, or Secretary.''.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.

       The Clayton Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 29.  In any civil action against a common carrier 
     railroad under section 4, 4C, 15, or 16 of this Act, the 
     district court shall not be required to defer to the primary 
     jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board.''.

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Clayton Act.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to 
     jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first 
     semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for 
     agreements described in section 10706 of that title and 
     transactions described in section 11321 of that title);''.
       (b) FTC Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``common carriers subject'' and inserting ``common carriers, 
     except for railroads, subject''.

     SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF TREBLE DAMAGES TO RAIL COMMON CARRIERS.

       Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to common carriers by rail 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation 
     Board under subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, 
     without regard to whether such railroads have filed rates or 
     whether a complaint challenging a rate has been filed.''.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS IN TITLE 49.

       (a) In General.--Section 10706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and the Sherman 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),'' and all that follows through 
     ``or carrying out the agreement'' in the third sentence;
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking the second sentence; and
       (ii) by striking ``However, the'' in the third sentence and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, and the antitrust 
     laws set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection do not 
     apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or 
     carrying out the agreement''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a 
     proposed agreement described in subsection (a) from the 
     application of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of 
     the Wilson Tariff Act (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June 
     19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
       ``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing 
     any such proposed agreement for the purpose of any provision 
     of law described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other 
     reviewing agency shall take into account, among any other 
     considerations, the impact of the proposed agreement on 
     shippers, on consumers, and on affected communities.''.
       (b) Combinations.--Section 11321 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``The authority'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in sections 4 (15 U.S.C. 15), 
     4C (15 U.S.C. 15c), section 15 (15 U.S.C. 25), and section 16 
     (15 U.S.C. 26) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 21(a)), the 
     authority''; and
       (B) by striking ``is exempt from the antitrust laws and 
     from all other law,'' in the third sentence and inserting 
     ``is exempt from all other law (except the antitrust laws 
     referred to in subsection (c)),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a 
     transaction described in subsection (a) from the application 
     of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 8-9), or the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 
     13a, 13b, 21a).
       ``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing 
     any such transaction for the purpose of any provision of law 
     described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other reviewing 
     agency shall take into account, among any other 
     considerations, the impact of the transaction on shippers and 
     on affected communities.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for section 10706 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``RATE 
     AGREEMENTS''.
       (2) The item relating to such section in the chapter 
     analysis at the beginning of chapter 107 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``10706. Rate agreements.''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of subsection 
     (b), this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Conditions.--
       (1) Previous conduct.--A civil action under section 4, 15, 
     or 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 25, 26) or complaint 
     under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 45) may not be filed with respect to any conduct or 
     activity that occurred prior to the date of enactment of this 
     Act that was previously exempted from the antitrust laws as 
     defined in section 1 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12) by 
     orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Surface 
     Transportation Board issued pursuant to law.
       (2) Grace period.--A civil action or complaint described in 
     paragraph (1) may not be filed earlier than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act with respect to any 
     previously exempted conduct or activity or previously 
     exempted agreement that is continued subsequent to the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my 
colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and 
Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 
2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal 
loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered 
ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since 
before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at 
the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our 
antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers, 
to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders 
in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to 
the detriment of the consumer.
  The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses, 
employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight 
where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long 
captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface 
Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will 
make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace.
  In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the 
country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of 
competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as 
a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust 
exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which 
virtually all other American corporations are required to operate, 
railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers 
over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as 
coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products. 
Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are 
forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many 
manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and 
abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The 
bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that 
if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our 
electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying 
higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to

[[Page 5555]]

have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as 
industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production 
in the state, or to leave it altogether.
  How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a 
shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt 
from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and 
pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board 
(STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise 
influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties 
cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in 
would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law, 
railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive 
practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses 
from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has 
experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially 
deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to 
modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service. 
Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so-
called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what 
the market would normally bear.
  Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter 
exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the 
Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review 
mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring 
legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove 
antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new 
properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies 
across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General 
and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of 
antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive 
and unreasonable rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private 
parties to sue for court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand 
the jurisdiction of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the 
railroad industry.
  By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the 
protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail 
industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides 
toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by 
Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However, 
because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater 
protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others, 
later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy 
legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the 
responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the 
Staggers Act.
  For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek 
redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust 
Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the 
glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace 
have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in 
the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to 
negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in 
the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West 
Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country.
  I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act 
of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem 
that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the 
Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer 
is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take 
heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Snowe, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Sununu):
  S. 773. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
Federal civilian and military retirees to pay health insurance premiums 
on a pretax basis and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental 
premiums; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the 
severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit program (FEHBP) 
premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and 
military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums 
with pre-tax dollars.
  Access to affordable health care is a critical issue for everyone. 
While Federal employees enjoy the ability to choose among a wide 
variety of health plans to best suit their needs, substantial increases 
in FEHBP premiums threaten to make health insurance coverage cost 
prohibitive for many Federal employees, their dependents, and Federal 
retirees.
  In response to these cost increases, a Presidential directive issued 
in 2000 extended premium conversion to current Federal employees who 
participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Premium 
conversion allows individuals to pay their health insurance premiums 
with pre-tax dollars. It is a benefit already available to many private 
sector employees and State and local government employees. While 
premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP 
premium, it helps to offset some of the cost by reducing an 
individual's Federal tax liability. Regrettably, our retired civil 
servants, who pay the same premiums as Federal employees, do not have 
this same opportunity.
  Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the 
tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This 
legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.
  Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our 
Nation's military retirees to assist them with increasing health care 
costs.
  A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees, 
including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the 
Military Coalition, have come out strongly in support of this bill.
  My support for this legislation spans four Congresses. In the 109th 
Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan 
support with 64 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation 
will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this critical legislation and to show their 
support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military 
retirees. 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. 773

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

     SECTION 1. PRETAX PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY 
                   FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 125 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Health insurance premiums of federal civilian and 
     military retirees.--
       ``(A) FEHBP premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     annuitant, as defined in paragraph (3) of section 8901, title 
     5, United States Code, with respect to a choice between the 
     annuity or compensation referred to in such paragraph and 
     benefits under the health benefits program established by 
     chapter 89 of such title 5.
       ``(B) TRICARE premiums.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the benefits of this section from being allowed to an 
     individual receiving retired or retainer pay by reason of 
     being a member or former member of the uniformed services of 
     the United States with respect to a choice between such pay 
     and benefits under the health benefits programs established 
     by chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

[[Page 5556]]



     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by 
     redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting 
     after section 223 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 224. TRICARE SUPPLEMENTAL PREMIUMS OR ENROLLMENT FEES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an 
     individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction the amounts 
     paid during the taxable year by the taxpayer for insurance 
     purchased as supplemental coverage to the health benefits 
     programs established by chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and 
     dependents.
       ``(b) Coordination With Medical Deduction.--Any amount 
     allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) shall not be 
     taken into account in computing the amount allowable to the 
     taxpayer as a deduction under section 213(a).''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes 
     Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross 
     income) is amended by redesignating paragraph (19) (as added 
     by section 703(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004) 
     as paragraph (20) and by inserting after paragraph (20) (as 
     so redesignated) the following new paragraph:
       ``(21) TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.--
     The deduction allowed by section 224.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 224. TRICARE supplemental premiums or enrollment fees.
``Sec. 225. Cross reference.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) FEHBP Premium Conversion Option for Federal Civilian 
     Retirees.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall take such actions as the Director considers necessary 
     so that the option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning 
     with the first open enrollment period, afforded under section 
     8905(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code, which begins not 
     less than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) TRICARE Premium Conversion Option for Military 
     Retirees.--The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with 
     the other administering Secretaries (as specified in section 
     1073 of title 10, United States Code), shall take such 
     actions as the Secretary considers necessary so that the 
     option made possible by section 125(g)(5)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall be offered beginning with the 
     first open enrollment period afforded under health benefits 
     programs established under chapter 55 of such title, which 
     begins not less than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. Leahy, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Obama, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 774. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State 
residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien 
students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the 
United States as children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 774

       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 ``Development, Relief, and 
     Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007'' or the ``DREAM Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001).
       (2) Uniformed services.--The term ``uniformed services'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of title 
     10, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY 
                   FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1623) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The repeal under subsection (a) shall 
     take effect as if included in the enactment of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).

     SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF 
                   CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE 
                   UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

       (a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who 
     Entered the United States as Children.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the 
     status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 
     subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an 
     alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United 
     States, if the alien demonstrates that--
       (A) the alien has been physically present in the United 
     States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years 
     immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of 
     initial entry;
       (B) the alien has been a person of good moral character 
     since the time of application;
       (C) the alien--
       (i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E), 
     or (10)(C) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)); and
       (ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (2), or (4) 
     of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a));
       (D) the alien, at the time of application, has been 
     admitted to an institution of higher education in the United 
     States, or has earned a high school diploma or obtained a 
     general education development certificate in the United 
     States; and
       (E) the alien has never been under a final administrative 
     or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, 
     unless the alien--
       (i) has remained in the United States under color of law 
     after such order was issued; or
       (ii) received the order before attaining the age of 16 
     years.
       (2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility 
     under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of 
     section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or 
     family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
       (3) Procedures.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide a procedure by regulation allowing eligible 
     individuals to apply affirmatively for the relief available 
     under this subsection without being placed in removal 
     proceedings.
       (b) Termination of Continuous Period.--For purposes of this 
     section, any period of continuous residence or continuous 
     physical presence in the United States of an alien who 
     applies for cancellation of removal under this section shall 
     not terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear 
     under section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1229(a)).
       (c) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--
       (1) In general.--An alien shall be considered to have 
     failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United 
     States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from 
     the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for 
     any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.
       (2) Extensions for exceptional circumstances.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may extend the time periods 
     described in paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that the 
     failure to timely return to the United States was due to 
     exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances 
     determined sufficient to justify an extension should be no 
     less compelling than serious illness of the alien, or death 
     or serious illness of a parent, grandparent, sibling, or 
     child.
       (d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on 
     the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of 
     removal or adjustment of status under this section.
       (e) Regulations.--
       (1) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall publish proposed regulations implementing this 
     section. Such regulations shall be effective immediately on 
     an interim basis, but are subject to change and revision 
     after public notice and opportunity for a period for public 
     comment.
       (2) Interim, final regulations.--Within a reasonable time 
     after publication of the interim regulations in accordance 
     with paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     publish final regulations implementing this section.

[[Page 5557]]

       (f) Removal of Alien.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may not remove any alien who has a pending application for 
     conditional status under this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Conditional basis for status.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, and except as provided in section 6, 
     an alien whose status has been adjusted under section 4 to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     shall be considered to have obtained such status on a 
     conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section. 
     Such conditional permanent resident status shall be valid for 
     a period of 6 years, subject to termination under subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Notice of requirements.--
       (A) At time of obtaining permanent residence.--At the time 
     an alien obtains permanent resident status on a conditional 
     basis under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall provide for notice to the alien regarding the 
     provisions of this section and the requirements of subsection 
     (c) to have the conditional basis of such status removed.
       (B) Effect of failure to provide notice.--The failure of 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide a notice under 
     this paragraph--
       (i) shall not affect the enforcement of the provisions of 
     this Act with respect to the alien; and
       (ii) shall not give rise to any private right of action by 
     the alien.
       (b) Termination of Status.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     terminate the conditional permanent resident status of any 
     alien who obtained such status under this Act, if the 
     Secretary determines that the alien--
       (A) ceases to meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of section 4(a)(1);
       (B) has become a public charge; or
       (C) has received a dishonorable or other than honorable 
     discharge from the uniformed services.
       (2) Return to previous immigration status.--Any alien whose 
     conditional permanent resident status is terminated under 
     paragraph (1) shall return to the immigration status the 
     alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional 
     permanent resident status under this Act.
       (c) Requirements of Timely Petition for Removal of 
     Condition.--
       (1) In general.--In order for the conditional basis of 
     permanent resident status obtained by an alien under 
     subsection (a) to be removed, the alien must file with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, in accordance with paragraph 
     (3), a petition which requests the removal of such 
     conditional basis and which provides, under penalty of 
     perjury, the facts and information so that the Secretary may 
     make the determination described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (2) Adjudication of petition to remove condition.--
       (A) In general.--If a petition is filed in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) for an alien, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall make a determination as to whether the alien 
     meets the requirements set out in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (E) of subsection (d)(1).
       (B) Removal of conditional basis if favorable 
     determination.--If the Secretary determines that the alien 
     meets such requirements, the Secretary shall notify the alien 
     of such determination and immediately remove the conditional 
     basis of the status of the alien.
       (C) Termination if adverse determination.--If the Secretary 
     determines that the alien does not meet such requirements, 
     the Secretary shall notify the alien of such determination 
     and terminate the conditional permanent resident status of 
     the alien as of the date of the determination.
       (3) Time to file petition.--An alien may petition to remove 
     the conditional basis to lawful resident status during the 
     period beginning 180 days before and ending 2 years after 
     either the date that is 6 years after the date of the 
     granting of conditional permanent resident status or any 
     other expiration date of the conditional permanent resident 
     status as extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
     accordance with this Act. The alien shall be deemed in 
     conditional permanent resident status in the United States 
     during the period in which the petition is pending.
       (d) Details of Petition.--
       (1) Contents of petition.--Each petition for an alien under 
     subsection (c)(1) shall contain information to permit the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to determine whether each of 
     the following requirements is met:
       (A) The alien has demonstrated good moral character during 
     the entire period the alien has been a conditional permanent 
     resident.
       (B) The alien is in compliance with section 4(a)(1)(C).
       (C) The alien has not abandoned the alien's residence in 
     the United States. The Secretary shall presume that the alien 
     has abandoned such residence if the alien is absent from the 
     United States for more than 365 days, in the aggregate, 
     during the period of conditional residence, unless the alien 
     demonstrates that alien has not abandoned the alien's 
     residence. An alien who is absent from the United States due 
     to active service in the uniformed services has not abandoned 
     the alien's residence in the United States during the period 
     of such service.
       (D) The alien has completed at least 1 of the following:
       (i) The alien has acquired a degree from an institution of 
     higher education in the United States or has completed at 
     least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a 
     bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States.
       (ii) The alien has served in the uniformed services for at 
     least 2 years and, if discharged, has received an honorable 
     discharge.
       (E) The alien has provided a list of each secondary school 
     (as that term is defined in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) that 
     the alien attended in the United States.
       (2) Hardship exception.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in 
     the Secretary's discretion, remove the conditional status of 
     an alien if the alien--
       (i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) of paragraph (1);
       (ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the 
     inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph 
     (1)(D); and
       (iii) demonstrates that the alien's removal from the United 
     States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual 
     hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent, or child 
     who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United 
     States.
       (B) Extension.--Upon a showing of good cause, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may extend the period of conditional 
     resident status for the purpose of completing the 
     requirements described in paragraph (1)(D).
       (e) Treatment of Period for Purposes of Naturalization.--
     For purposes of title III of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), in the case of an alien who is 
     in the United States as a lawful permanent resident on a 
     conditional basis under this section, the alien shall be 
     considered to have been admitted as an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence and to be in the United 
     States as an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence. However, the conditional basis must be 
     removed before the alien may apply for naturalization.

     SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE BENEFITS UNDER THIS ACT.

       If, on the date of enactment of this Act, an alien has 
     satisfied all the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (E) of section 4(a)(1) and section 5(d)(1)(D), the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may adjust the status of the alien to 
     that of a conditional resident in accordance with section 4. 
     The alien may petition for removal of such condition at the 
     end of the conditional residence period in accordance with 
     section 5(c) if the alien has met the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 5(d)(1) during the 
     entire period of conditional residence.

     SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for 
     relief under this Act, except where the alien has been placed 
     into deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings either 
     prior to or after filing an application for relief under this 
     Act, in which case the Attorney General shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction and shall assume all the powers and duties of 
     the Secretary until proceedings are terminated, or if a final 
     order of deportation, exclusion, or removal is entered the 
     Secretary shall resume all powers and duties delegated to the 
     Secretary under this Act.
       (b) Stay of Removal of Certain Aliens Enrolled in Primary 
     or Secondary School.--The Attorney General shall stay the 
     removal proceedings of any alien who--
       (1) meets all the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     (C), and (E) of section 4(a)(1);
       (2) is at least 12 years of age; and
       (3) is enrolled full time in a primary or secondary school.
       (c) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant 
     to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United 
     States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing 
     minimum age for employment.
       (d) Lift of Stay.--The Attorney General shall lift the stay 
     granted pursuant to subsection (b) if the alien--
       (1) is no longer enrolled in a primary or secondary school; 
     or
       (2) ceases to meet the requirements of subsection (b)(1).

     SEC. 8. PENALTIES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN APPLICATION.

       Whoever files an application for relief under this Act and 
     willfully and knowingly falsifies, misrepresents, or conceals 
     a material fact or makes any false or fraudulent statement or 
     representation, or makes or uses any false writing or 
     document knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent 
     statement or entry, shall be fined in accordance with title 
     18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.

     SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     officer or employee of the United States may--
       (1) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant 
     to an application filed

[[Page 5558]]

     under this Act to initiate removal proceedings against any 
     persons identified in the application;
       (2) make any publication whereby the information furnished 
     by any particular individual pursuant to an application under 
     this Act can be identified; or
       (3) permit anyone other than an officer or employee of the 
     United States Government or, in the case of applications 
     filed under this Act with a designated entity, that 
     designated entity, to examine applications filed under this 
     Act.
       (b) Required Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide the information 
     furnished under this section, and any other information 
     derived from such furnished information, to--
       (1) a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection 
     with an investigation or prosecution of an offense described 
     in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 212(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), when such information 
     is requested in writing by such entity; or
       (2) an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively 
     identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such 
     individual is deceased as a result of a crime).
       (c) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits 
     information to be examined in violation of this section shall 
     be fined not more than $10,000.

     SEC. 10. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS; PROHIBITION ON 
                   FEES.

       Regulations promulgated under this Act shall provide that 
     applications under this Act will be considered on an 
     expedited basis and without a requirement for the payment by 
     the applicant of any additional fee for such expedited 
     processing.

     SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance 
     provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that 
     of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be 
     eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
       (1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV 
     (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), 
     subject to the requirements of such parts.
       (2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title 
     IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of 
     such part.
       (3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), 
     subject to the requirements for such services.

     SEC. 12. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than seven years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives setting forth--
       (1) the number of aliens who were eligible for cancellation 
     of removal and adjustment of status under section 4(a);
       (2) the number of aliens who applied for adjustment of 
     status under section 4(a);
       (3) the number of aliens who were granted adjustment of 
     status under section 4(a); and
       (4) the number of aliens whose conditional permanent 
     resident status was removed under section 5.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. 
        Coleman):
  S. 775. A bill to establish a National Commission on the 
Infrastructure of the United States; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I join my good friend, Sen. George 
Voinovich, in introducing a bill to study the current state and future 
needs of our national infrastructure, including rail, airports, 
wastewater treatment facilities, waterways and levees.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion 
is needed over a five-year period to bring the Nation's infrastructure 
to a good condition. Clearly, we need to look at our needs and find a 
better way to maintain the infrastructure we have, while meeting new 
demand--all in a way that is fiscally sustainable.
  Last Congress, during the debate about the surface transportation 
reauthorization, we discussed the problems facing our roadways. Poor 
road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion per year in repairs and 
operating costs and 3.5 billion hours a year in traffic. Over 27 
percent of the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete. While transit use increased faster than any 
other mode of transportation--up 21 percent--between 1993 and 2002, the 
Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed 
annually to maintain conditions.
  In Delaware, while population growth grew a robust 23 percent from 
1990 to 2003, vehicle travel on our highways increased 38 percent. And 
driving on roads in need of repair cost Delaware motorists $160 million 
a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. To take a look at 
what must be done to maintain our highways and transit as well as 
address future needs, and ways to pay for all of that, Congress created 
a commission to study these issues in SAFETEA-LU and report back to 
Congress with recommendations.
  But there are more types of infrastructure in need of attention than 
just highways and transit. Air travel has reportedly surpassed pre-
September 11, 2001, levels and is projected to grow 4.3 percent 
annually through 2015. Aging wastewater management systems discharge 
billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each 
year. And the EPA estimates that $390 billion over the next 20 years 
will be needed to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet 
increasing demands.
  Further, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints 
and delays, as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50 
percent by 2020 and intercity passenger rail ridership has increased to 
approximately 25 million a year. To accommodate both freight and 
passenger rail demand, $12-13 billion a year in investments will be 
needed.
  After Hurricane Katrina led to the failure of floodwalls in New 
Orleans, Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to inspect other flood 
control structures to identify other repair needs. The Corps found that 
146 levees in 28 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are 
in danger of failing.
  In Delaware, vehicle travel on our highways has increased 38 percent 
from 1990 to 2003, costing Delaware motorists $160 million a year in 
extra vehicle repairs and operating costs--$273 per motorist. Delaware 
also has $304 million in drinking water infrastructure needs over the 
next 20 years and $288 million in wastewater infrastructure needs.
  Understanding the problem and plotting a plan of attack are essential 
for attracting and maintaining business and investment in our economy 
and communities. The legislation we are proposing today would give the 
National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States until 
February 15, 2009, to complete a study of the Nation's infrastructure, 
in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies 
as well as private sector stakeholders. The Commission would study the 
age and condition of public infrastructure, the capacity to sustain 
current and anticipated economic development, the methods used to 
finance public infrastructure, and the return to the economy from 
public works investment.
  Many times, when we debate infrastructure needs, people simply call 
for additional funds. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is losing confidence 
in the way we invest their tax dollars. Failures, like the floodwalls 
in New Orleans, harm confidence in the government's ability to protect 
communities from natural disasters. The fact that we've made no changes 
to the Corps' flood control program in the wake of that catastrophic 
failure has further damaged government credibility.
  Increasing traffic in spite of the investment of billions of dollars 
every year in highways and bridges reduces confidence in government's 
ability to address traffic congestion. Failure to invest in rail while 
both freight usage and passenger ridership is at all time highs makes 
the taxpayer doubt that government is spending their tax dollars 
according to the needs of the people.
  Part of the solution is, likely, greater funding. But the American 
people need to be confident in the products we provide before they are 
going to sign a check for more funding. That is why the Commission will 
study innovative financing, such as tax-credit bonds and private 
investment. But also, the Commission will study the impact of State and 
local governments' land use and economic development decisions on 
Federal infrastructure costs, and provide Congress with some insight as 
to how the various levels of government can better coordinate to gain 
greater efficiencies from our infrastructure investment.

[[Page 5559]]

  Stronger coordination, greater investment and creativity are the keys 
to maintaining our infrastructure and investing in future needs--as 
well as a healthy and robust economy. I look forward to guidance from 
this Commission as to how Congress can better do just that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 777. 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, today I am reintroducing the Withholding 
Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would repeal Section 511 of the Tax 
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.
  Last year, Congress answered Americans' calls for tax relief 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 the legislation assisted 
small businesses, encouraged the kind of investment that creates jobs 
and makes our economy grow, and ensured fairer tax treatment for 
middle-income families who would otherwise be left picking up the bill 
for a tax intended for the wealthy.
  Alongside these essential tax relief provisions, however, conferees 
quietly inserted Section 511, a last-minute $7 billion tax penalty on 
government contractors, into the bill. Thus, the bill, whose aim was 
``tax increase prevention,'' actually raised taxes. On the same day the 
President signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act 
into law, I introduced the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006 and made 
good on my promise to work to repeal Section 511. Today, I am renewing 
that promise.
  Section 511--the largest revenue-raiser by far in the Tax Increase 
Prevention and Reconciliation Act--imposes a sweeping new 3 percent tax 
withholding on all government payments for products and services made 
by the Federal Government, State governments, and local governments 
with expenditures of $100 million or more. It affects payments for 
goods and services under government contracts and payments to any 
person for a service or product provided to a government entity--for 
example, Medicare and certain grants--beginning in 2011.
  Section 511 will not close the tax gap--or the difference between 
what American taxpayers owe and what they actually pay--as proponents 
of the provision argue. Section 511 is estimated to ``increase'' 
revenue by $7 billion from 2011 to 2015, but raises $6 billion of that 
amount due solely to accelerated tax receipts and not an actual revenue 
increase from tax compliance. It generates only $215 million in 2012 
and increases slightly in each of the three years thereafter hardly the 
$290 billion annual tax gap the IRS estimates. Further, Section 511 is 
based on revenues from government payments with no relationship to a 
company's taxable income or tax liability. Section 511 hurts honest 
taxpaying businesses without providing any additional enforcement 
mechanisms for tax delinquents.
  Section 511's costs to businesses are substantial. Although 
proponents of Section 511 call the 3 percent withholding rate ``low'' 
and ``conservative,'' in most cases, businesses make substantially less 
than 3 percent profit on their contracts and sometimes, turn no profit 
at all. Section 511 will effectively withhold entire paychecks--
interest free--thereby impeding the cash flow of small businesses, 
eliminating funds that can be used for reinvestment in the business, 
and forcing companies to pass on the added costs to customers or 
finance the additional amount.
  Section 511 will also impose significant administrative costs on the 
Federal, State, and local governments--costs so high, in fact, that the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the provision constitutes an 
unfunded mandate on the state and local governments. The projected 
costs of Section 511, says CBO, will far exceed the allowable $50 
million annual threshold.
  More than the costs to government, though, Section 511 stands to 
negatively impact nearly every sector of the economy--from health care 
and technology to building and transportation--and there is already 
talk of expanding the provision's reach and accelerating its effective 
date. What there wasn't talk of, though--at the inception of Section 
511--was the provision itself. Congress never debated the merits of an 
expanded withholding requirement--as a revenue-raiser or as a way to 
narrow the tax gap--in a committee or on either chamber's floor. If it 
had, Congress would have realized that it does neither of these things 
well. Section 511 is the start of years of bad tax policy. We can do 
better than this, and I urge my colleagues to join me in working to 
repeal this unfair tax penalty.
  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. 777

       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 2007''.

     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. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Sanders):
  S. 778. A bill to amend title IV of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 in order to authorize the Secretary of Education 
to award competitive grants to eligible entities to recruit, select, 
train, and support Expanded Learning and After-School Fellows that will 
strengthen expanded learning initiatives, 21st century community 
learning center programs, and after-school programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teaching 
Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act to tap the idealism, 
energy, and talent of 2-year and 4-year college graduates to serve as 
teaching fellows in our Nation's highest need schools.
  The Act will establish a new cadre of talented leaders to establish, 
expand or improve expanded learning initiatives, 21st century community 
learning center programs and after-school programs. These programs will 
build essential academic and youth development skills for all students 
in targeted grade levels in expanded-day programs. They will also 
assist teachers during the school day in linking the school curriculum 
more closely with after school programming.
  As we know most Olympic athletes train harder when a gold medal is in 
sight. Employees work overtime when a business launches a breakthrough 
product. Communities rally to provide material relief and comfort when 
natural disasters strike. When success matters most, increased effort 
is essential for achieving a worthy goal, and that fundamental 
principle can work in education too.
  The time has come for the Nation to go the extra mile to meet our 
education goals and ensure that all children develop the skills they 
need to participate fully in our economy and in the civic life of their 
communities. If students are to learn more--the core premise of the No 
Child Left Behind Act--they must have more time to meet these 
expectations.
  Teaching Fellows recruited under this bill will receive intensive 
training by experienced high-quality after-school programs and will 
serve for two years. The Act will also enable Teaching Fellows to 
pursue a bachelor's or graduate degree in education, in order to give 
communities a pipeline of leaders ready for future involvement in 
education and youth development.
  For the most part, reform efforts to date have equated education 
reform with school reform. As a result our attention has been focused 
on the 1,000 hours a year children are in school, while largely 
overlooking the 4,000

[[Page 5560]]

hours a year when children are awake and out of school.
  Teachers must, of course, remain at the heart of our strategy to 
improve education. But they need help. We need to expand learning time, 
involve caring adults in the lives of children, and make learning more 
relevant and engaging, especially for students who are struggling.
  The school calendar today is largely a relic of the agrarian age. It 
fails to respond to the realities that students must develop new skills 
for modem needs, and that in most families, parents are working during 
many of the after-school hours. Fourteen million children come back to 
empty homes after school. Voters across party lines, demographic 
groups, and geographic areas have said for 5 consecutive years that 
they overwhelmingly support after-school programs for all. Police 
chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors overwhelmingly agree that investing in 
after-school programs is more effective in reducing youth violence and 
crime than hiring more police officers or stiff penalties. Diverting 
less than one percent of at-risk youth from a life of crime would save 
society several times the cost of the after-school programs. It is time 
for a new learning day to dawn in our country. Our communities and our 
citizens need to waken to clear call for involvement and investment in 
this aspect of public education.
  The Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act draws 
on the impressive experience of after-school programs and schools that 
have developed, and tested these ideas and shown they can work. The Act 
is inspired by the Teaching Fellowship Program created by Citizen 
Schools, a national network of after-school programs with a track 
record of significant impact on academic achievement. A rigorous, long-
term evaluation has shown that such students outperform their peers on 
six out of seven measures of school success.
  The Act also draws on the superb work of LA's BEST and After-School 
All-Stars, as well as the experience and innovations of other schools 
and programs across the country.
  Under the Act, the Department of Education will make grants to 
partnerships between local education agencies and strong community 
organizations, institutions of higher education, and community learning 
centers. These partnerships will recruit and place Teaching Fellows to 
work full-time in high-need schools that serve low-income students. 
Grants from the Department of Education will be at least $15,000 per 
Fellow annually, so that recipients can recruit, select, train, and 
support the Fellows. Fellows will also be able to earn a national 
service education award for each term of service. Partnerships will be 
required to obtain non-federal matching funds to leverage the federal 
government's investment and to involve the private sector in expanding 
these educational opportunities.
  Expanded learning time and after-school programs are the new frontier 
of education reform in America. Teaching Fellows recruited under the 
Act will complement the outstanding efforts of classroom teachers and 
infuse new energy, talent, and idealism in the after-school sector. 
They will also be an essential resource for the nation's parents, 
encouraging students to understand their potential and helping them to 
see the true promise of the American Dream.
  This bill is supported by thirty-seven groups representing education 
and after-school communities. I ask unanimous consent that their 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             National Collaboration for Youth,

                                                February 16, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: The National 
     Collaboration for Youth is writing to express its support of 
     the Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and After-School 
     (T-FELAS) Act.
       T-FELAS will establish a new service teacher corps and 
     expands learning and enrichment opportunities targeted 
     towards the hours after the school day ends. As a group that 
     focuses on youth, and particularly at-risk youth, we know the 
     need for expanded learning and positive youth development 
     experiences in the hours after school. We also know the 
     importance of developing the next generation of youth 
     workers, skilled in youth development practices and viewing 
     public service and youth work as a career, and this bill will 
     strive to do just that.
       We applaud the inclusion of youth development language, 
     especially the training in youth development for the Fellows, 
     and acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive 
     through both two- and four-year institutions of higher 
     education that provide accredited coursework in youth 
     development. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation of T-
     FELAS programs, implementing the interagency reach of the 
     Federal Youth Development Council as a place to disseminate 
     best practices will continue to move the field forward.
       We look forward to working with your office and the staff 
     of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as 
     this bill progresses towards enactment. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact us if we can be of any assistance.
       Thank you for your leadership, and public service.
           Sincerely,
         America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Marguerite 
           Kondracke, President and CEO, American Humanics Inc., 
           Kala M. Stroup Ph.D, President, Big Brothers Big 
           Sisters of America, Judy Vredenburgh, President and 
           CEO, Camp Fire USA, Jill Pasewalk, President and CEO, 
           Communities In Schools, Inc., Daniel Cardinali, 
           President, First Focus, Bruce Lesley, President, 
           Leadership & Renewal Outfitters, Janet R. Wakefield, 
           President and CEO, MENTOR/National Mentoring 
           Partnership, Gail Manza, Executive Director, National 
           4-H Council, Donald T. Floyd, Jr., President and CEO, 
           National Collaboration for Youth, Irv Katz, President 
           and CEO, National Network For Youth, Victoria Wagner, 
           President and CEO, Search Institute, Peter M. Benson, 
           Ph.D President and CEO, Youth Service America, Steven 
           A. Culbertson, President and CEO.
                                  ____



                             National AfterSchool Association,

                                                    March 5, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
         Pensions,
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: On behalf of the 
     National AfterSchool Association, I am pleased to offer our 
     support for the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and 
     After-School (T-FELAS) Act of 2007. We appreciate your 
     attention to, and support for, the need for quality 
     afterschool programs and for attracting young professionals 
     to the field.
       By creating a cadre of talented young people to serve as 
     Fellows in expanded-day and afterschool programs, the T-FELAS 
     Act will help ensure that such programs are infused with 
     well-educated front-line staff who can support students in 
     activities that will enhance their development and success in 
     school. The Fellowships and opportunities to pursue 
     additional education should help attract graduates interested 
     in afterschool work, but who might not be able to enter the 
     field without such supports.
       Research shows that more highly-educated and well-trained 
     staff who understand how children develop are the key to high 
     quality afterschool programs. As the leading voice of the 
     afterschool profession, representing over 9,000 afterschool 
     practitioners, administrators, and policymakers, we at the 
     National AfterSchool Association applaud this creative 
     approach to bringing talented new workers into the field. We 
     look forward to working with you both on this initiative and 
     on approaches to address the larger issues of overall 
     compensation and training levels in the field that make long-
     term retention of staff difficult for afterschool programs.
       Thank you again for your leadership in ensuring that well-
     trained and supportive adults are available to enhance the 
     lives of our young people.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Judith N. Nee,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                  Voices For National Service,

                                                February 23, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Voices for National 
     Service, we are writing to thank you for sponsoring the 
     Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After School Act 
     of 2007. This legislation addresses a critical need in 
     communities across our country and offers an exciting 
     opportunity to expand national service.
       The T-FELAS Act will recruit outstanding college graduates 
     to become Teaching Fellows and to serve in schools and after-
     school programs that serve low-income students. Through their 
     service, Teaching Fellows will take their first steps along a 
     pathway of

[[Page 5561]]

     service and educational leadership. These dynamic, aspiring 
     educators will earn Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards which 
     will support them as they go on to careers as classroom 
     teachers and after-school leaders. Their experience in 
     linking in-school and after-school learning will play a 
     critical role in advancing academic achievement and expanding 
     educational opportunity.
       Voices for National Service is a coalition of national 
     service organizations and state commissions from across the 
     country that provide direct services to communities in need, 
     matching the talents of committed citizens with service 
     opportunities in schools, community centers, senior homes, 
     health clinics, and national parks and recreation areas. 
     Collectively, we reach thousands of Americans in need every 
     day. We are excited to support this important initiative and 
     look forward to contributing to its success. The T-FELAS Act 
     will strengthen public education, create a powerful pipeline 
     of future educational leaders, and move students in schools 
     across the country toward the American Dream of college and 
     career opportunity.
       Sincerely,
         Karen Baker, Executive Director, California Volunteers; 
           Michael Brown, CEO, City Year, Nelda Brown, Executive 
           Director, National Service-Learning Partnership; Kyle 
           Caldwell, President & CEO, ConnectMichigan Alliance; 
           AnnMaura Connolly, Senior Vice President, City Year; 
           Calvin George, National Director, National Association 
           of Community Health Centers; Jacqueline Johnson, 
           Executive Director, Connecticut Commission for 
           Volunteer Services; Marsha Meeks Kelly, Executive 
           Director, Mississippi Commission for Volunteer Service; 
           Marguerite Kondracke, President & CEO, America's 
           Promise; Michelle Nunn, CEO, Hands On Network; Sally 
           Prouty, President, The Corps Network, Eric Schwarz, 
           President, Citizen Schools; Dorothy Stoneman, 
           President, YouthBuild USA; Marty Weinstein, 
           Chairperson, California AmeriCorps Alliance.
                                  ____

                                      Illinois Center for Violence


                                                   Prevention,

                                                February 15, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: We are writing to express its support 
     of the Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and After-School 
     (T-FELAS) Act, which will establish a new service teacher 
     corps and expands learning and enrichment opportunities 
     targeted towards the hours after the school day ends.
       The Illinois Center for Violence Prevention (ICVP) is a 
     leader on the issue of out-of-school time programs in the 
     state of Illinois. We have long supported strategies to 
     enhance the quality of out-of-schoo1 time services, since 
     high quality programs are able to provide extended learning 
     opportunities and positive youth development experiences for 
     our youth. ICVP coordinates the Illinois After-school 
     Partnership, co-chaired by our state's Department of Human 
     Services and our State Board of Education. The Partnership is 
     working on policy and program enhancements to increase the 
     quality and availability of out-of-school-time opportunities. 
     The Partnership has been examining the professional 
     development needs of the current and future workforce for 
     this field, and is participating in a state-wide effort to 
     increase career pathways for youth workers.
       The T-FELAS Act will be a valuable and needed tool that 
     will help develop the next generation of youth workers, 
     versed in essential youth development skills, and who view 
     public service and youth work as a career. We applaud the 
     inclusion of youth development language, especially the 
     training in youth development for the Fellows, and 
     acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive through 
     both two- and four-year institutions of higher education that 
     provide accredited coursework in youth development.
       Thank you for your public service and leadership on this 
     issue. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of 
     any assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Debbie Bretag,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                         Afterschool Alliance,

                                                February 16, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: The Afterschool 
     Alliance is very pleased to have the opportunity to express 
     our support for the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning 
     and After-School Act of 2007 (T-FELAS). This legislation will 
     expand the federal government's interest in and support for 
     afterschool programs that keep kids safe, improve academic 
     achievement, and support working families by investing in 
     quality initiatives. On behalf of the advocates, afterschool 
     providers, researchers and parents that make up the Alliance 
     network, thank you for your longstanding support for our goal 
     of Afterschool for All.
       Just as having a highly qualified teacher in the classroom 
     leads to student success, having well trained, skilled 
     leadership in afterschool programs ensures that the programs 
     provided contribute to children's academic and social 
     development and give young people the opportunities that will 
     assure their college and workplace readiness in the future. 
     The T-FELAS program will provide partnerships that offer 
     afterschool programs, including the 21st Century Community 
     Learning Centers, the chance to expand the quality and 
     capacity of services offered in targeted communities. It will 
     give individuals the financial support they need to pursue 
     careers in the afterschool field and to put their training 
     and talents to use serving children and families that need 
     their help most.
       The Alliance endorses this legislation and looks forward to 
     working with you in the future to translate our common vision 
     of high quality afterschool and expanded learning 
     opportunities for all into reality.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Jodi Grant,

     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                  First Focus,

                                                February 16, 2007.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
         Pensions, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: First Focus is 
     pleased to endorse the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning 
     and After-School Act of 2007 (T-FELAS).
       Quality after-school programs are critical for the nation's 
     young people. After-school programs keep children safe and 
     productive while their parents are at work; however, less 
     than half of parents of 6- to 17-year-olds say there are 
     enough affordable afterschool programs according to a recent 
     study conducted for America's Promise--The Alliance for 
     Youth.
       T-FELAS will help to not only expand after-school 
     opportunities for young people, but it will also help to 
     ensure that new and existing after-school opportunities are 
     of high quality. We appreciate the emphasis placed on 
     positive youth development in your legislation, as well as 
     your inclusion of an independent evaluation and the 
     dissemination of best practices through the Federal Youth 
     Development Council. These measures will strengthen outcomes 
     for children and help to ensure that after-school programs 
     throughout the country benefit from the lessons learned by 
     the Expanded Learning and After-School Fellows.
       First Focus is a new bipartisan advocacy organization that 
     seeks to make children and their families the first focus of 
     federal budget and policy decisions. T-FELAS is an important 
     way to do so. We are pleased to support your efforts and look 
     forward to working with you.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Lesley,
     President.
                                  ____

                                        Next Generation Youth Work


                                                    Coalition,

                                                February 16, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: The Next Generation 
     Youth Work Coalition is writing to express its support of the 
     Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and After-School (T-
     FELAS) Act
       T-FELAS will establish a new service teacher corps and 
     expand learning and enrichment opportunities targeted towards 
     the hours after the school day ends. Both of these are much 
     needed improvements that will help ensure that children and 
     youth have the supports they need to succeed.
       The Next Generation Youth Work Coalition is a group of 
     individuals and organizations dedicated to developing a 
     strong, diverse after-school and youth development workforce 
     that is stable, prepared, supported and committed to the 
     well-being and empowerment of children and youth, and 
     particularly at-risk youth. We know the need for expanded 
     learning and positive youth development experiences in the 
     hours after school. We know the importance of developing the 
     next generation of youth workers, skilled in youth 
     development practices and viewing public service and youth 
     work as a career. Our research shows that those who chose to 
     work come from varied backgrounds but share a common belief--
     that they can make a difference.
       We applaud the inclusion of youth development language, 
     especially the training in youth development for the Fellows, 
     and acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive 
     through both two- and four-year institutions of higher 
     education that provide accredited coursework in youth 
     development. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation

[[Page 5562]]

     of T-FELAS programs, implementing the interagency reach of 
     the Federal Youth Development Council as a place to 
     disseminate best practices will continue to move the field 
     forward.
       We look forward to supporting your office and the staff of 
     the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as this 
     bill progresses towards enactment. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact Pam Garza if we can be of any assistance: 
     [email protected] or (202) 347-2080 x15.
       Thank you for your leadership on behalf of the youth in our 
     nation.
           Sincerely,
     Karen Pittman,
       Co-Chair.
     Pam Garza,
       Co-Chair.
     Deb Crai,
       Co-Chair.
                                  ____

                                                February 19, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Burr: On behalf of the 
     board and staff of the Johns Hopkins University Center for 
     Summer Learning, it is my pleasure to express our support for 
     the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School 
     (T-FELAS) bill.
       This important legislation would enhance out-of-school time 
     learning opportunities for young people, and provide a new 
     mechanism for recruiting and retaining teachers and staff for 
     such programs. By offering fellowships to recent college 
     graduates who work in after-school and summer programs 
     serving Title I students, the bill would dramatically enhance 
     the quality and amount of learning opportunities available 
     for disadvantaged students. The program would result in a 25-
     30% increase in the time students spend engaged in learning 
     and improve a wide range of developmental outcomes for youth.
       In addition, the legislation would create a talented new 
     group of educators who specialize in motivating young people 
     to learn outside the traditional classroom. The fellows who 
     participate in the program will provide critical linkages 
     between the school day and after-school programs and become 
     dynamic future leaders in the field of education and youth 
     development.
       Thank you so much for supporting this legislation and 
     please feel free to contact me directly at (410) 516-6221 if 
     we can provide any assistance to this effort.
           Sincerely,

                                                Ron Fairchild,

                                               Executive Director,
     Center for Summer Learning.
                                  ____

                                                February 15, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing in support of the 
     Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After School Act 
     of 2007. The T-FELAS Act addresses a critical need for 
     schools, communities, and working families.
       It will dramatically strengthen after-school and expanded 
     learning time programs and make them full partners in 
     restoring the promise of educational opportunity for all 
     children.
       Teachers in our schools are doing their best, but America's 
     traditional 6-hour school day is obsolete. Our students need 
     more learning time, more caring adults involved in their 
     learning, and more relevant, hands-on learning activities 
     that inspire and motivate them.
       At Citizen Schools, we have seen firsthand the impact that 
     Teaching Fellows can make. Citizen Schools operates a 
     national network of after-school programs that advance 
     student achievement and mobilize adult volunteers to teach 
     hands-on apprenticeship courses. Our programs blend real-
     world learning projects with rigorous academic and leadership 
     development activities, preparing students in the middle 
     grades for success in high school, college, the workforce, 
     and civic life. Citizen Schools currently serves 3,000 
     students and engages 2,400 volunteers in California, 
     Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas. In 
     Massachusetts our programs operate in Boston, Lowell, Malden, 
     New Bedford, Worcester, and Springfield.
       Citizen Schools works intensively with low-income students, 
     most of whom are struggling academically. A rigorous 
     independent evaluation has reported that Citizen Schools' 
     students significantly out-performed a matched comparison 
     group on key metrics of school success and advancement, 
     including grades and standardized test scores.
       The Teaching Fellowship program that Citizen Schools has 
     piloted attracts dynamic, aspiring educators and community 
     builders to careers in education. In the morning our Fellows 
     support classroom teachers and in the afternoon they serve as 
     front-line teachers and team leaders at our after-school 
     programs. Teaching Fellows also have the opportunity to earn 
     a Master's Degree in Education, preparing them for careers as 
     teachers and educational leaders. Teaching Fellows have been 
     the crucial factor in delivering powerful results for our 
     students.
       The T-FELAS Act will advance the achievement of our 
     neediest students and open new horizons of opportunity to 
     them. Thank you so much for your leadership in introducing 
     the T-FELAS Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eric Schwarz,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                            Save the Children,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy and Senator Burr: I am writing to 
     express Save the Children's support of the Teaching Fellow 
     for Expanded Learning and AfterSchool (T-FELAS) Act, which 
     will expand learning opportunities outside of the school day 
     and establish a new service teacher corps.
       Save the Children provides literacy and obesity prevention 
     programs after school and during the summer to children 
     living in poor, often isolated, rural areas. We know the 
     difference these activities make in their lives. Students in 
     our programs are not only safe during the critical hours from 
     3 to 6 p.m.; they are also doing better in school. Evaluation 
     results from the past three school years found that our 
     literacy program is improving the reading levels of regular 
     participants. Fifty-four percent of the children 
     participating made gains in reading proficiency greater than 
     would be expected if they were just attending school.
       We also know first-hand the difficulties of recruiting and 
     retaining trained, dynamic staff. The T-FELAS Act will assist 
     the caring individuals working with high-need children in 
     rural communities improve their qualifications by enabling 
     them to pursue an undergraduate or graduate level degree in 
     education, expanding their opportunities to in public 
     education and youth development programs.
       We look forward to working with you and the staff of the 
     Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as this bill 
     progresses towards enactment. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact us if we can be of any assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark K. Shriver,
     Vice President and Managing Director.
                                  ____

                                                February 15, 2007.
       Dear Brenda Wright: I am writing in support of the T-Felas 
     bill that Senators Kennedy and Burr are sponsoring. As a 
     provider of high quality after school enrichment I would love 
     to see more awareness of the opportunity for extended 
     learning time and the strides that organizations such as ours 
     have made in the field. We have an incredible opportunity to 
     truly make a positive impact on the lives of these students 
     both academically and behaviorally.
           Thank you for your support of this bill.

                                               Jerri Fatticci,

                                    North Carolina State Director,
     Citizen Schools.
                                  ____

                                      Wellesley Centers for Women,
                                     Wellesley, MA, Feb. 16, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Burr,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Burr: The National 
     Institute on Out-of-School Time is writing to express its 
     support of the Teaching Fellow for Expanded Learning and 
     After-School (T-FELAS) Act.
       T-FELAS will help ease the difficulty of recruiting and 
     paying new educators and leaders for high need schools and 
     afterschool programs. NIOST is actively involved in 
     developing increased educational opportunities for people who 
     choose afterschool as their profession and is excited about 
     how T-FELAS will also increase the viability of afterschool 
     as a professional career. Talented front-line educators are 
     needed to serve in expanded learning and after-school 
     environments to help students meet the ever-increasing 
     challenges of the real world.
       T-FELAS will encourage and enable qualified people 
     interested in teaching and afterschool to spend time learning 
     in the field while completing their own education. The 
     funding of dynamic Teaching Fellows to administer and improve 
     expanded-day programs and to also assist teachers during the 
     school day is a great plan. Research indicates that 
     relationships between school and afterschool staff can 
     contribute to positive academic and developmental outcomes 
     for youth. The Teaching Fellows have the potential of playing 
     an important role in supporting those relationships.
       The National Institute on Out-of-School Time looks forward 
     to watching this bill as it progresses towards enactment. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                                Ellen Gannett,

                               Director, The National Institute on
                                               Out-of-School Time.

[[Page 5563]]

     
                                  ____
                                                 Search Institute,
                                                February 14, 2007.
     Senator Edward Kennedy,
     317 Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and 
     After-School Act. This bill, fondly known as T-FELAS, is an 
     exciting proposal that will recruit, train and place Fellows 
     in expanded learning and after-school environments.
       I am particularly gratified to see that the bill ensures 
     that each Fellow will be provided with training on the power 
     of positive relationships and the value of developmental 
     assets. This is so important! Research has consistently shown 
     that increased developmental assets promote academic success, 
     divert youth from risky behavior and give young people the 
     strengths they need to make positive choices in life.
       I assure you that providing the Fellows with training in 
     positive youth development and the 40 Developmental Assets 
     will have a dramatic and profound impact on their ability to 
     serve the youth under their care. When Fellows develop 
     sustained, strength-based relationships with children and 
     adolescents, these after-school and summer hours will produce 
     all the positive outcomes we hope to see from our students.
       Again, thank you for your service and your efforts to 
     ensure that all youth have an opportunity to thrive!
           Best regards,
                                              Peter Benson, Ph.D.,
     President.
                                  ____



                              Policy Studies Associates, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2007.
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, HELP Committee, Hart Senate Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing in support of your bill 
     to amend ESEA Title II to create the Expanded Learning and 
     After-School Fellows program.
       I direct evaluations of large-scale after-school programs 
     in many locations, including Boston, New York City, statewide 
     in New Jersey, and rural America (as sponsored by Save the 
     Children). Our studies have consistently shown the value to 
     youth of staffing these programs with well-educated 
     individuals who have four-year college degrees. Such 
     individuals bring an understanding of the learning process 
     plus an enriched store of background knowledge. Because they 
     have completed a college education, they understand its value 
     and can communicate high standards and the value of hard work 
     to the youth with whom they work.
       In one example, from a 2004 multi-year evaluation of 
     programs in New York City sponsored by The After-School 
     Corporation (TASC), I wrote: In sites where at least 25 
     percent of project staff had a four-year college degree, 
     participants had more positive changes in test scores than in 
     TASC sites with a lower proportion of staff members with such 
     degrees (effect size of 0.14 in math and 0.13 in reading). 
     Staff with college degrees may be better able to see and to 
     exploit the varied learning opportunities embedded within 
     themes and topics adopted by after-school projects.
       You or your staff should call on me at any time if I can be 
     helpful with regard to this bill. I can be reached at (202) 
     939-5323 and at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                             Elizabeth R. Reisner,
      Principal.
                                  ____



                               The Forum for Youth Investment,

                                                February 19, 2007.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     317 Russell Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The Forum for Youth Investment is 
     writing to express its support of the Teaching Fellows for 
     Expanded Learning and After-School (T-FELAS) Act.
       T-FELAS will establish a new service teacher corps and 
     expand learning and enrichment opportunities targeted towards 
     the hours after the school day ends. Both of these are much 
     needed improvements that will help ensure that children and 
     youth have the supports they need to succeed.
       The Forum for Youth Investment is committed to ensuring all 
     young people are Ready by 21TM--ready for college, 
     work and life. We know the need for expanded learning and 
     positive youth development experiences in the hours after 
     school. We know the importance of developing the next 
     generation of youth workers, skilled in youth development 
     practices and viewing public service and youth work as a 
     career. Our research shows that those who chose to work come 
     from varied backgrounds but share a common belief--that they 
     can make a difference.
       We applaud the inclusion of youth development language, 
     especially the training in youth development for the Fellows, 
     and acknowledgment of the education youth workers receive 
     through both two- and four-year institutions of higher 
     education that provide accredited coursework in youth 
     development. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation of T-
     FELAS programs, implementing the interagency reach of the 
     Federal Youth Development Council as a place to disseminate 
     best practices will continue to move the field forward.
       We look forward to supporting your office and the staff of 
     the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as this 
     bill progresses towards enactment. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact Nicole Yohalem if we can be of any assistance--at 
     [email protected] or (202) 207-3341.
       Thank you for your leadership on behalf of the youth in our 
     nation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Karen Pittman,

                                               Executive Director,
                                       Forum for Youth Investment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 779. A bill to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a one year only 
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act.
  For the last six years, this Act has provided critical funding to our 
rural schools and counties and has built collaboration on the ground 
through the accomplishments of the Resource Advisory Committees.
  Unfortunately Congress has not been able to reauthorize P.L. 106-393 
and I do not feel the schools and counties should become victims while 
we in Congress negotiate a path forward.
  Thus, I am introducing this bill today and will work to include it in 
any legislation that is being considered by the Senate.
  The Act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing 
the goals of Congress. This Act has restored programs for students in 
rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural 
schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural 
school students with educational opportunities comparable to suburban 
and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of 
this Act.
  Next, the Act has allowed rural county road districts and county road 
departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has 
been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have 
been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish 
passage have been upgraded and replaced.
  In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs have been 
formed. These RAC's cover our largest 150 forest counties. Nationally 
these 15-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and 
approved over 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public 
and private lands. These projects have addressed a wide variety of 
improvements drastically needed on our National Forests. Projects have 
included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, 
road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and 
trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication.
  The accomplishments of this Act over the last few years are positive 
and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to 
benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute 
to improving the health of our National Forests.
  If we do not work to reauthorize this Act, all of the progress of the 
last six years will be lost. Schools in timber dependant communities 
will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts 
will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or 
canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and 
trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our 
children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so 
that only the essential services of the county are met because that is 
all they will be able to afford.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 783. A bill to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit 
of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State 
of Louisiana, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to re-
introduce--with some changes--a bill that I first introduced on April 
6, 2004, in the 108th Congress and which I reintroduced in the 109th 
Congress. This

[[Page 5564]]

bill will transfer 3,083 acres of Federal land to the Barataria 
Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, and 
authorize the Park to purchase up to 821 acres of neighboring private 
lands from willing sellers. The lands in question contain important 
freshwater wetlands, and would allow the park boundary to conform to 
existing waterways and levee corridors.
  As of today, the Senate has twice passed--once in the 108th Congress 
and once in the 109th Congress--a form of this bill by unanimous 
consent. I trust that few will find anything too objectionable about 
these provisions in the 110th Congress either. After all, it simply 
places lands that are already under Federal control under the 
management authority of the National Park Service, which already 
manages neighboring lands and helps protect their environmental, 
cultural and historic integrity.
  The first major tract in question is the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands, 
which were acquired by the Justice Department in 1996 as a result of 
the settlement of a lawsuit. Although the National Park Service has 
constructive possession of the deeds, it lacks legal management 
authority. The area has exemplary natural resource values and has been 
designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a wetland of 
significant value. Most importantly, because of the hydrologic 
connection between the two areas, the environmental health of the Jean 
Lafitte Park's Barataria Preserve is dependent on the continued health 
of the Bayou aux Carpes.
  The second major tract is the Bayou Segnette wetlands, which are 
presently managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The inclusion of this 
area in the Barataria Unit will allow for better control over water 
entering the park from outside sources.
  My bill also authorizes the acquisition, from willing sellers, of 
approximately 821 acres of privately owned lands which are adjacent to 
the park. Approximately half of this area is designated as 
jurisdictional wetlands, with limited access and no potential for 
development. All of this land has been included within the boundary at 
the request of the owners. This provision was also included in the 
earlier versions of this bill that were passed in the 108th and 109th 
Congresses.
  Lastly, allow me to explain what is new about this bill: this bill 
also authorizes the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve to 
acquire the Fleming-Berthoud Plantation--previously known as the Mavis 
Grove Plantation. This plantation is one of the southernmost early 
sugar plantations and surrounds a prehistoric Indian mound and historic 
cemetery on the edge of the bayou, which is one of the most scenic and 
most photographed cemeteries around New Orleans. Recently, it was 
highlighted in the recent Cabildo exhibition and book on historic 
cemeteries of New Orleans.
  The original plantation contained more than 10,000 acres and was a 
large sugar plantation. After floods destroyed area sugar plantations 
in the 19th century, this was turned into one of the larger cypress 
tree lumbering plantations. The Berthoud family bought it in the late 
19th century and the Fleming family bought it in the early 20th 
century.
  The 1,000-year-old prehistoric Indian mound and historic above-ground 
tombstone cemetery are relatively well preserved and have been twice 
declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by state 
officials; though no action has yet been taken on that designation.
  Currently, many of the historic plantation structures are unrestored, 
vacant and in poor condition. But the main plantation house remains in 
good condition. I have been told that it was photographed for the cover 
of National Geographic Magazine in the 1930s and has been the setting 
for close to 10 Hollywood movies.
  The other buildings include a 75-foot, 175-year-old brick sugar 
refining chimney, in relatively good condition; an overseer's Creole 
style cottage from the mid 1800s cited by historians as a fine early 
example of island architecture; a 19th Century annex building connected 
to the original plantation house, now in poor condition; a 1920s house 
built on the original sugar refinery foundations; an early blacksmith 
shop and several other barns and buildings, most in poor condition.
  My bill will authorize the National Park Service to acquire this land 
from the family, who I am told support the transaction and the 
restoration of the land and buildings. I am also told that historic 
preservation organizations may step forward to provide private funding 
in support of the National Park Service's acquisition of the land.
  In all, I think that this bill marks an important day for Louisiana. 
We are authorizing the management and preservation of several 
ecological, cultural and historic gems. I hope that my colleagues will 
fully support this endeavor as they have in the past.
  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:

                                 S. 783

       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 ``Jean Lafitte National 
     Historical Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND PRESERVE 
                   BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 of the National Parks and 
     Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230) is amended in the 
     second sentence by striking ``of approximately twenty 
     thousand acres generally depicted on the map entitled 
     `Barataria Marsh Unit-Jean Lafitte National Historical Park 
     and Preserve' numbered 90,000B and dated April 1978,'' and 
     inserting ``generally depicted on the map entitled `Boundary 
     Map, Barataria Preserve Unit, Jean Lafitte National 
     Historical Park and Preserve', numbered _____, and dated 
     ________,''.
       (b) Acquisition of Land.--Section 902 of the National Parks 
     and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) Within the'' and all that follows 
     through the first sentence and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Barataria preserve unit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may acquire any land, 
     water, and interests in land and water within the area, as 
     depicted on the map described in section 901, by donation, 
     purchase with donated or appropriated funds, transfer from 
     any other Federal agency, or exchange.
       ``(B) Limitations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any private land located in the area, as 
     depicted on the map described in section 901, may be acquired 
     by the Secretary only with the consent of the owner of the 
     land.
       ``(ii) Boundary adjustment.--On the date on which the 
     Secretary, under subparagraph (A), completes the acquisition 
     of a parcel of private land located in the area, as depicted 
     on the map described in section 901, the boundary of the 
     historical park and preserve shall be adjusted to reflect the 
     acquisition.
       ``(iii) Jurisdiction of national park service.--Any Federal 
     land acquired in the areas shall be transferred without 
     consideration to the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     National Park Service.
       ``(iv) Easements.--To ensure adequate hurricane protection 
     of the communities located in the area, any land in the area 
     identified on the map that is acquired or transferred shall 
     be subject to any easements that have been agreed to by the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of the Army.'';
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary may 
     also'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) French quarter.--The Secretary may'';
       (C) in the third sentence, by striking ``Lands, waters, and 
     interests therein'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Acquisition of state land.--Land, water, and 
     interests in land and water''; and
       (D) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In acquiring'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Acquisition of oil and gas rights.--In acquiring'';
       (2) by striking subsections (b) through (f) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Resource Protection.--With respect to the land, 
     water, and interests in land and water of the Barataria 
     Preserve Unit, the Secretary shall preserve and protect--
       ``(1) fresh water drainage patterns;
       ``(2) vegetative cover;
       ``(3) the integrity of ecological and biological systems; 
     and
       ``(4) water and air quality.''; and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (c).
       (c) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.--Section 905 of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230d) is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``, except that 
     within the core area and on those lands

[[Page 5565]]

     acquired by the Secretary pursuant to section 902(c) of this 
     title, he'' and inserting ``on land, and interests in land 
     and water managed by the Secretary, except that the 
     Secretary''.
       (d) Administration.--Section 906 of the National Parks and 
     Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Pending such 
     establishment and thereafter the'' and inserting ``The''.

     SEC. 3. REFERENCES IN LAW.

       (a) In General.--Any reference in a law (including 
     regulations), map, document, paper, or other record of the 
     United States--
       (1) to the Barataria Marsh Unit shall be considered to be a 
     reference to the Barataria Preserve Unit; or
       (2) to the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park shall be 
     considered to be a reference to the Jean Lafitte National 
     Historical Park and Preserve.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Title IX of the National Parks 
     and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 230 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Barataria Marsh Unit'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Barataria Preserve Unit''; and
       (2) by striking ``Jean Lafitte National Historical Park'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Jean Lafitte National 
     Historical Park and Preserve''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 784. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
require commercial nuclear power plant operators to transfer spent 
nuclear fuel from the nuclear fuel pools of the operators into spent 
nuclear fuel dry casks at independent spent fuel storage installations 
of the operators that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, to convey to the Secretary of Energy title to all such 
transferred spent nuclear fuel, to provide for the transfer to the 
Secretary of the independent spent fuel storage installation operating 
responsibility of each plant together with the license granted by the 
Commission for the installation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 784

       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 ``Federal Accountability for 
     Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DRY CASK STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982 (42 U.S.C. 10121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

          ``Subtitle I--Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

     ``SEC. 185. DRY CASK STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Contractor.--The term `contractor' means a person 
     that holds a contract under section 302(a) and is licensed by 
     the Commission to possess spent nuclear power reactor fuel.
       ``(2) Spent nuclear fuel dry cask.--The term `spent nuclear 
     fuel dry cask' means the container (and all the components 
     and systems associated with the container)--
       ``(A) in which spent nuclear fuel is stored and naturally 
     cooled at an independent spent fuel storage installation that 
     is licensed by the Commission and located at the power 
     reactor site; and
       ``(B) with a design that is approved by the Commission by 
     license or rule.
       ``(3) Spent nuclear fuel pool.--The term `spent nuclear 
     fuel pool' means a water-filled container on a nuclear power 
     reactor site in which spent nuclear fuel rods are stored.
       ``(b) Transfer of Spent Nuclear Fuel.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contractor shall transfer spent 
     nuclear fuel from spent nuclear fuel pools to spent nuclear 
     fuel dry casks at an independent spent fuel storage 
     installation that is licensed by the Commission and located 
     at the power reactor site in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Spent nuclear fuel stored as of date of enactment.--
     Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, a contractor shall complete the transfer of all 
     spent nuclear fuel that is stored in spent nuclear fuel pools 
     as of the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(3) Spent nuclear fuel stored after date of enactment.--
     Not later than 6 years after the date on which spent nuclear 
     fuel is discharged from a reactor, a contractor shall 
     complete the transfer of any spent nuclear fuel that is 
     stored in a spent nuclear fuel pool after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(4) Inadequate funds or availability.--If funds are not 
     available to complete a transfer under paragraph (2) or (3), 
     or if spent nuclear fuel dry casks suitable for the 
     particular fuel are not available on reasonable terms and 
     conditions, the contractor may apply to the Commission to 
     extend the deadline for the transfer to be completed.
       ``(5) Commission licensing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The transfer under paragraph (2) or (3) 
     shall be to spent nuclear fuel dry casks generally licensed 
     by the Commission.
       ``(B) Generally licensed spent nuclear fuel dry casks 
     unavailable.--If generally licensed spent nuclear fuel dry 
     casks described in subparagraph (A) are not available, the 
     deadlines established in paragraphs (2) and (3) may be met by 
     the good faith filing of an application to the Commission for 
     a specific independent spent fuel storage installation 
     license.
       ``(C) Expedited review.--The Commission shall expedite the 
     review and decision of the Commission on an application 
     received under subparagraph (B) in a manner that is 
     consistent with public health and safety, common defense and 
     security, and the right of an interested person to a hearing 
     under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(c) Funding.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     compensate a contractor for expenses incurred in carrying out 
     subsection (b), including costs associated with--
       ``(1) licensing and construction of an independent spent 
     fuel storage installation located at the power reactor site;
       ``(2) fabrication and delivery of spent nuclear fuel dry 
     casks;
       ``(3) transfers of spent nuclear fuel;
       ``(4) documentation relating to the transfers;
       ``(5) security; and
       ``(6) hardening and other safety or security improvements.
       ``(d) Conveyance of Title.--
       ``(1) Certification and conveyance of title.--
       ``(A) Certification.--The Commission shall certify to the 
     Secretary when safe and secure transfer of spent nuclear fuel 
     has been carried out under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection 
     (b).
       ``(B) Acceptance of title.--On receipt of the 
     certification, the Secretary shall accept the conveyance of 
     title to the spent nuclear fuel dry cask (including the 
     contents of the spent nuclear fuel dry cask) from the 
     contractor.
       ``(2) Responsibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--A conveyance of title under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall confer on the Secretary full responsibility 
     (including safety, security, and financial responsibility) 
     for the subsequent possession, stewardship, maintenance, 
     monitoring, and ultimate disposition of all spent nuclear 
     fuel transferred to the Secretary.
       ``(B) Licenses.--On conveyance of title--
       ``(i) the general or specific Commission license held by 
     the contractor for the spent nuclear fuel dry cask shall be 
     terminated; and
       ``(ii) a general license for the spent nuclear fuel dry 
     cask under sections 53 and 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2111) shall be issued to the Secretary.
       ``(C) Regulations.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations that establish the terms and conditions for 
     licenses described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
       ``(e) Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish the 
     capability to carry out subsection (d)(2) in a manner that 
     protects the public health and safety and common defense and 
     security, and complies with all applicable laws.
       ``(2) Contracts with licensees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary may contract with a holder of the operating license 
     issued by the Commission for 1 or more of the power reactors 
     located on or adjacent to the spent nuclear fuel dry cask for 
     the performance of all or part of the tasks required to carry 
     out subsection (d)(2).
       ``(B) Effect of contract.--A contract described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not relieve the Secretary of the 
     ultimate responsibility of the Secretary under subsection 
     (d)(2) and as a licensee of the Commission.''.
       (b) Use of Waste Fund.--Section 302(d) of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the costs incurred in carrying out subsections (c) 
     and (e) of section 185.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 785. A bill to amend title 4 of the United States Code to limit 
the extent to which States may tax the compensation earned by 
nonresident telecommuters; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 5566]]


  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague 
Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 
2007.
  The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal 
doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut 
and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work 
from home.
  Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in 
America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as 
cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only 
made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater 
flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. 
As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or 
other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required 
at their primary place of work.
  This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, 
families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise 
worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work 
and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in 
so doing, lowers pollution.
  Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to 
maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who 
choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the 
most aggressive.
  Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York 
requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to 
pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the 
State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to 
the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of 
``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has 
determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. 
While there are several States that have ``convenience of the 
employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New 
York.
  Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New 
York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from 
home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on 
those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is 
physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects 
the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites 
outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their income earned 
from home.
  According to Connecticut's attorney general, thousands of Connecticut 
residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, 
it isn't only Connecticut residents who are at risk.
  Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that 
telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. 
Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the 
remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to 
apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 
percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of 
employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals 
upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. The Supreme Court declined 
to hear his appeal.
  A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who 
worked for the New York office of Cowen & Co. as an investment 
counselor from 1976 through 1996 and paid New York state income taxes 
during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, 
opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several 
times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his 
days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this 
time, he paid New York state income taxes for the days he was in New 
York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, 
however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due 
to its ``convenience of the employer'' rule.
  These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this 
``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals 
across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, 
however, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.
  This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also 
discourages people from telecommuting when we should be doing the 
opposite.
  Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve 
fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax 
Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a 
State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to 
be in the taxing state when the nonresident is actually working in 
another state. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that 
citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.
  Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation does--
is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in 
a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the 
worker should pay taxes in that State.
  Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by 
having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. 
However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to 
allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is 
working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of 
services paid for and maintained by Connecticut, including roads, 
water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only 
fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that 
he or she uses.
  This is not just an issue that deals with a small group of citizens 
from one small state.
  Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. 
It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to 
seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence the way we 
live and work.
  I hope our colleagues will favorably consider 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. 785

       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 ``Telecommuter Tax Fairness 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON STATE TAXATION OF COMPENSATION EARNED 
                   BY NONRESIDENT TELECOMMUTERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 127. Limitation on State taxation of compensation 
       earned by nonresident telecommuters

       ``(a) In General.--In applying its income tax laws to the 
     compensation of a nonresident individual, a State may deem 
     such nonresident individual to be present in or working in 
     such State for any period of time only if such nonresident 
     individual is physically present in such State for such 
     period and such State may not impose nonresident income taxes 
     on such compensation with respect to any period of time when 
     such nonresident individual is physically present in another 
     State.
       ``(b) Determination of Physical Presence.--For purposes of 
     determining physical presence, no State may deem a 
     nonresident individual to be present in or working in such 
     State on the grounds that--
       ``(1) such nonresident individual is present at or working 
     at home for convenience, or
       ``(2) such nonresident individual's work at home or office 
     at home fails any convenience of the employer test or any 
     similar test.
       ``(c) Determination of Periods of Time With Respect to 
     Which Compensation Is Paid.--For purposes of determining the 
     periods of time with respect to which compensation is paid, 
     no State may deem a period of time during which a nonresident 
     individual is physically present in another State and 
     performing certain tasks in such other State to be--
       ``(1) time that is not normal work time unless such 
     individual's employer deems such period to be time that is 
     not normal work time,
       ``(2) nonworking time unless such individual's employer 
     deems such period to be nonworking time, or

[[Page 5567]]

       ``(3) time with respect to which no compensation is paid 
     unless such individual's employer deems such period to be 
     time with respect to which no compensation is paid.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States (or any subdivision thereof), the District of 
     Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Income tax.--The term `income tax' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 110(c).
       ``(3) Income tax laws.--The term `income tax laws' includes 
     any statutes, regulations, administrative practices, 
     administrative interpretations, and judicial decisions.
       ``(4) Nonresident individual.--The term `nonresident 
     individual' means an individual who is not a resident of the 
     State applying its income tax laws to such individual.
       ``(5) Employee.--The term `employee' means an employee as 
     defined by the State in which the nonresident individual is 
     physically present and performing personal services for 
     compensation.
       ``(6) Employer.--The term `employer' means the person 
     having control of the payment of an individual's 
     compensation.
       ``(7) Compensation.--The term `compensation' means the 
     salary, wages, or other remuneration earned by an individual 
     for personal services performed as an employee or as an 
     independent contractor.
       ``(e) No Inference.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as bearing on--
       ``(1) any tax laws other than income tax laws,
       ``(2) the taxation of corporations, partnerships, trusts, 
     estates, limited liability companies, or other entities, 
     organizations, or persons other than nonresident individuals 
     in their capacities as employees or independent contractors,
       ``(3) the taxation of individuals in their capacities as 
     shareholders, partners, trust and estate beneficiaries, 
     members or managers of limited liability companies, or in any 
     similar capacities, and
       ``(4) the income taxation of dividends, interest, 
     annuities, rents, royalties, or other forms of unearned 
     income.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such 
     chapter 4 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``127. Limitation on State taxation of compensation earned by 
              nonresident telecommuters.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 786. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
foster efficient markets and increase competition and transparency 
among packers that purchased livestock from producers; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I have in the past 
sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or 
what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act.'' Today 
we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to 
reintroduce this important legislation.
  My sponsorship of the packer ban this Congress is based on the belief 
that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a 
fair price for their livestock. Over the years we have seen widespread 
consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the 
trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no 
question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market 
their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.
  The past CEO of a major packer in 1994 explained that the reason 
packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use 
their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers 
buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely 
being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the 
live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent 
producer.
  This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent 
producers have a share in the marketplace while assisting the Mandatory 
Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a 
packer's daily kill comes from the spot market.
  By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory 
price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and 
accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being 
purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency 
of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be 
guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the 
daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement.
  The packers required to comply would be the same packers required to 
report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that 
kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 
lambs annually, over a 5 year average.
  Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer 
contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority 
of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory 
Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not 
accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on 
the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to 
manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give 
confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy 
and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair 
prices for contracts based on that data.
  It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs 
being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price 
reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of 
livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that 
information is wrong, the contract producers suffer.
  This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers 
market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by 
making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be 
manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The 
Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock 
producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking 
forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.
  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. 786

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

     SECTION 1. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.

       Chapter 5 of subtitle B of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
     of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 260. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered packer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `covered packer' means a packer 
     that is required under this subtitle to report to the 
     Secretary each reporting day information on the price and 
     quantity of livestock purchased by the packer.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered packer' does not 
     include a packer that owns only 1 livestock processing plant.
       ``(2) Nonaffiliated producer.--The term `nonaffiliated 
     producer' means a producer of livestock--
       ``(A) that sells livestock to a packer;
       ``(B) that has less than 1 percent equity interest in the 
     packer, which packer has less than 1 percent equity interest 
     in the producer;
       ``(C) that has no officers, directors, employees, or owners 
     that are officers, directors, employees, or owners of the 
     packer;
       ``(D) that has no fiduciary responsibility to the packer; 
     and
       ``(E) in which the packer has no equity interest.
       ``(3) Spot market sale.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `spot market sale' means a 
     purchase and sale of livestock by a packer from a producer--
       ``(i) under an agreement that specifies a firm base price 
     that may be equated with a fixed dollar amount on the date 
     the agreement is entered into;
       ``(ii) under which the livestock are slaughtered not more 
     than 7 days after the date on which the agreement is entered 
     into; and
       ``(iii) under circumstances in which a reasonable 
     competitive bidding opportunity exists on the date on which 
     the agreement is entered into.
       ``(B) Reasonable competitive bidding opportunity.--For the 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), circumstances in which a 
     reasonable competitive bidding opportunity shall be 
     considered to exist if--
       ``(i) no written or oral agreement precludes the producer 
     from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers; and

[[Page 5568]]

       ``(ii) no circumstance, custom, or practice exists that--

       ``(I) establishes the existence of an implied contract (as 
     determined in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code); 
     and
       ``(II) precludes the producer from soliciting or receiving 
     bids from other packers.

       ``(b) General Rule.--Of the quantity of livestock that is 
     slaughtered by a covered packer during each reporting day in 
     each plant, the covered packer shall slaughter not less than 
     the applicable percentage specified in subsection (c) of the 
     quantity through spot market sales from nonaffiliated 
     producers.
       ``(c) Applicable Percentages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     applicable percentage shall be 25 percent.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--In the case of a covered packer that 
     reported to the Secretary in the 2006 annual report that more 
     than 75 percent of the livestock of the covered packer were 
     captive supply livestock, the applicable percentage shall be 
     the greater of--
       ``(A) the difference between the percentage of captive 
     supply so reported and 100 percent; and
       ``(B)(i) during each of calendar years 2008 and 2009, 10 
     percent;
       ``(ii) during each of calendar years 20010 and 2011, 15 
     percent; and
       ``(iii) during calendar year 2012 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 25 percent.
       ``(d) Nonpreemption.--Notwithstanding section 259, this 
     section does not preempt any requirement of a State or 
     political subdivision of a State that requires a covered 
     packer to purchase on the spot market a greater percentage of 
     the livestock purchased by the covered packer than is 
     required under this section.
       ``(e) Relationship to Other Provisions.--Nothing in this 
     section affects the interpretation of any other provision of 
     this Act, including section 202.''.

                          ____________________