[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2292-2308]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 2638. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal 
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules 
and Administration.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting 
Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and 
Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first 
weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to 
legislation that I first proposed in 1997.
  Currently, we are in the midst of the most serious business of our 
democracy--the primary elections to select the nominees to be our next 
President. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a 
vote. But recent elections have Shown us that unneeded obstacles are 
preventing citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of 
defective ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election 
galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The 
Help American Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an 
important step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in 
the administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to 
replace outdated voting systems and improve election administration. 
However, there is much that still needs to be done.
  With more and more voters needing to cast their ballots on election 
day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it 
easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to 
voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own 
State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee 
ballot. These States constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens 
of the U.S. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election 
offices or at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now 
conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are 
critical if we are to conduct fair elections, for it has become 
unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up 
at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. And if we 
continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken 
machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create 
barriers to voting.
  That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal 
election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 
to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a 
weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots 
and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to 
undermine our elections.
  Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period 
of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern 
time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous States also 
open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to 
close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be 
inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both 
Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious 
observances.
  Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental U.S. also 
addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, 
or even a State, from influencing voting in places where polls are 
still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of 
buildings available for polling stations and people available to work 
at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers.
  Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter 
turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls 
without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that 
holding elections on a nonworking day can increase voter turnout. In 
one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends 
and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter 
participation rates.
  In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform 
recommended that we move our federal election day to a national 
holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not 
well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I 
share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a nonworking day.
  Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first 
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was 
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and 
landowning voters were often coming to town anyway.
  Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done 
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to 
make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday 
voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse 
and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have 
two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 
12 hours on a Tuesday, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only 
one or two hours to vote. As we have seen in recent elections, long 
lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer 
than one or 2 hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off 
at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not 
enough time in a workday to vote.
  With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable 
norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our 
Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to 
participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives 
in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all 
aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend 
may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the 
integrity of future elections and full participation by as many 
Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a 
common sense proposal whose time has come.
  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. 2638

       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 ``Weekend Voting Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHANGE IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND 
                   SUNDAY.

       Section 25 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 7) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 25. The first Saturday and Sunday after the first 
     Friday in November, in every even numbered year, are 
     established as the days for the election, in each of the 
     States and Territories of the United States, of 
     Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on 
     the 3d day of January thereafter.''.

     SEC. 3. CHANGE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND 
                   SUNDAY.

       Section 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Tuesday next after the first Monday'' and 
     inserting ``first Saturday and Sunday after the first 
     Friday''.

[[Page 2293]]



     SEC. 4. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Presidential general election.--Chapter 1 of title 3, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating section 1 as section 1A; and
       (B) by inserting before section 1A the following:

     ``Sec. 1. Polling place hours

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental 
     United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii) 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Presidential general election.--The term 
     `Presidential general election' means the election for 
     electors of President and Vice President.
       ``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
       ``(1) Polling places in the continental united states.--
     Each polling place in the continental United States shall be 
     open, with respect to a Presidential general election, 
     beginning on Saturday at 10 a.m. eastern standard time and 
     ending on Sunday at 6 p.m. eastern standard time.
       ``(2) Polling places outside the continental united 
     states.--Each polling place not located in the continental 
     United States shall be open, with respect to a Presidential 
     general election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local 
     time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. local time.
       ``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the 
     hours of 10 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6 a.m. local time 
     on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in which the 
     polling place is located.''.
       (2) Congressional general election.--Section 25 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 7) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating section 25 as section 25A; and
       (B) by inserting before section 25A the following:

     ``SEC. 25. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental 
     United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii) 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Congressional general election.--The term 
     `congressional general election' means the general election 
     for the office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate 
     or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
       ``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
       ``(1) Polling places inside the continental united 
     states.--Each polling place in the continental United States 
     shall be open, with respect to a congressional general 
     election, beginning on Saturday at 10 a.m. eastern standard 
     time and ending on Sunday at 6 p.m. eastern standard time.
       ``(2) Polling places outside the continental united 
     states.--Each polling place not located in the continental 
     United States shall be open, with respect to a congressional 
     general election, beginning on Saturday at 10 a.m. local time 
     and ending on Sunday at 6 p.m. local time.
       ``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the 
     hours of 10 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6 a.m. local time 
     on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in which the 
     polling place is located.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 3, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 1 and inserting the following:

``1. Polling place hours.
``1A. Time of appointing electors.''.

       (2) Sections 871(b) and 1751(f) of title 18, United States 
     Code, are each amended by striking ``title 3, United States 
     Code, sections 1 and 2'' and inserting ``sections 1A and 2 of 
     title 3''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2641. A bill to amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to improve the transparency of information on skilled nursing 
facilities and nursing facilities and to clarify and improve the 
targeting of the enforcement of requirements with respect to such 
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the purpose of 
introducing a bill. The bill's title is the Nursing Home Transparency 
and Improvement Act of 2008.
  I introduce this bill along with Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. It is a 
bipartisan bill. Senator Kohl, because he is in the majority, has the 
distinguished pleasure of serving as chairman of a special committee on 
aging which is also a very important responsibility, particularly since 
our Government spends about more than $50 billion a year on nursing 
home care for elderly, among other things that are the responsibility 
tie of that committee.
  The bill that we are introducing is an important piece of legislation 
that aims to bring some overdue transparency to consumers regarding 
nursing home quality. It also provides long-needed improvements to our 
enforcement system.
  This legislation further strengthens nursing home staff training 
requirements. In America today, there are over 1.7 million elderly and 
disabled individuals in roughly 17,000 nursing homes.
  As the baby boom generation ages, that number probably will rise, 
unless we do something about the problems of osteoporosis and 
Alzheimer's and diabetes. Hopefully, we can do those things so our 
nursing homes do not fill up more. But those are some of the health 
problems that are facing 77 million baby boomers. Some of them 
undoubtedly will end up in nursing homes.
  So we have to have not only a tremendous interest in ensuring nursing 
home quality based upon the number of people who are already there, but 
we are going to have more in the future.
  While many people are using alternatives such as home care or other 
methods of community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a 
critical option for our elderly and our disabled. I always think in 
terms of nursing homes being at the end of a continuum of care for 
people who need some help.
  People want to stay in their own home. When there is a question, can 
they do that without endangering them, bring some help to the home, 
relatives or home health care types.
  If that is not the right environment, then assisted living. And then 
other things that might eventually bring a person to a nursing home. 
But a nursing home is a last resort. I say that because during my 
tenure as chairman of the Aging Committee from 1997 to the year 2001, 
versus the period of time I was chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, dealing with a lot of aging issues, interacting with a lot 
of older people, I have never once had anybody say to me that: I am 
just dying to get into a nursing home.
  So I think it is important we do whatever we can to keep people out 
of nursing homes. But there are some people, a lot of people, and a 
growing number of people who are going to need that type of care.
  So we have to be concerned about the quality of care in nursing 
homes. We surely owe it to them to make sure they receive the safe and 
quality care they deserve. Unfortunately in many areas, the nursing 
homes, we have a few bad apples always spoiling the barrel. Too many 
Americans receive poor care, often in a subset of a nursing home.
  Unfortunately, this subset of chronic offenders stays in business, in 
many ways keeping their poor track records hidden from the public at 
large and often facing little or no enforcement from the Federal 
Government.
  As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a 
longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive 
the safe and quality care we expect for our own loved ones. But this 
effort requires transparency, transparency in the nursing home industry 
so consumers are armed with information, consumers having information 
they need to make the best decisions possible for loved ones. This same 
transparency also provides additional market incentives for bad homes 
to improve.
  This effort also requires a strong mandatory enforcement and 
monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that 
would not take the steps needed to do so voluntarily.
  The Grassley-Kohl legislation seeks to strengthen both areas, 
transparency and enforcement. It is a bill that is good for consumers, 
good for nursing home residents, and good even for the nursing home 
community.
  Let's look at transparency. In the market for nursing home care, 
similar to all markets, consumers must have adequate data to make 
informed choices. For years people looking at a nursing home for 
themselves or loved ones had no way of knowing whether that home was--
this is kind of a legal term in the regulations--a ``special focus 
facility,'' a designation meaning they had been singled out as a 
consistently poor performer.

[[Page 2294]]

  Why should consumers not have access to this information? The 
Government has it and so should consumers. To that end, this bill 
requires that the ``special focus facilities'' designation be placed on 
the CMS website. Nursing Home Compare is the name of that website.
  By giving consumers this information, we will both give consumers 
information necessary to make informed choices and poorly performing 
homes an extra incentive to shape up or consumers then can go 
elsewhere.
  This bill also requires more transparency about ownership 
information. What is so secretive about who owns a nursing home? Also, 
it provides transparency in inspection reports and more accountability 
for large nursing home chains and the development of a standardized 
resident complaint form so there is a clear and easy way to report 
problems and have them resolved.
  The bill would also bring more transparency on what portion of a 
nursing home's spending is used for direct care for residents and also 
bring more uniformity to the reporting of nursing staffing levels so 
people can make an apples-to-apples comparison between nursing homes.
  But even with improved transparency, there are some nursing homes 
that will not improve on their own. In the nursing home industry, most 
homes provide quality care on a consistent basis. But as in many 
sectors, this industry is given a bad name by a few bad apples that 
spoil the barrel.
  So we need to give inspectors better enforcement tools. The current 
system provides incentives to correct problems only temporarily and 
allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while continuing to deliver 
substandard care to residents. That system must be fixed.
  In ongoing correspondence that I have had with Terry Weems, the 
Acting Administrator of CMS, that agency has requested the statutory 
authority to collect civil monetary penalties sooner and hold them in 
escrow pending appeal. To that end, this bill requires penalties be 
collected within 90 days following a hearing; after that, they be held 
in escrow pending appeal.
  Penalties should also be meaningful. Too often they are assessed at 
the lowest possible amount, if at all. Penalties should be more than 
merely the cost of doing business, they should be collected in a 
reasonable timeframe and should not be rescinded easily.
  These changes would help prod the industry's bad actors to get their 
act together or get out of business. In addition to increased 
transparency and improved enforcement, this bill provides commonsense 
solutions to a number of other problems as well.
  This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to establish a national independent monitoring program to tackle 
problems specific to interstate and large intrastate nursing home 
chains. This legislation directs the Government Accountability Office 
to, one, conduct studies on the role, if any, of financial problems in 
the poor performance of special focus facilities; identify best 
practices at the State level in temporary management programs; and, 
three, determine what are the barriers preventing the purchase of 
nursing homes with a record of poor quality.
  Finally, in the case of nursing homes being closed due to prior 
safety or quality of care, the bill requires that residents and their 
representatives be given a sufficient notice so they can adequately 
plan a transfer to a better performing nursing home. I happen to be 
very sensitive to the fact that nursing home residents are often old 
and fragile. Moving them into new facilities is often very traumatic. 
So we have to make sure these residents are transferred appropriately 
and with the time and care deserved.
  This bill would also strengthen training requirements for nursing 
staff, by including dementia and abuse prevention training as part of 
the preemployment training.
  The Grassley-Kohl bill also requires a study on the appropriateness 
of increasing training requirements for nurse aids and supervisory 
staff.
  I am proud to introduce this bill today, along with the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, the chairman of the Aging Committee. 
He and I have a long history of working on issues together, 
particularly for the elderly. We will continue to do everything we can 
to make sure America's nursing home residents receive the safe and 
quality care they deserve. Increasing transparency, improved 
enforcement tools, and strengthening training requirements will go a 
long way toward achieving this goal.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Home 
Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008 with my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley conducted a great deal of 
valuable oversight for nursing homes during his tenure as Aging 
Committee chairman from 1997 through 2000, and he continues to make 
major contributions in this area today. Working toward higher standards 
of nursing home quality is a tradition of which I am proud to be a 
part.
  It is staggering to think that the most recent major law dictating 
Federal standards for quality, for data reporting, and for enforcement 
was passed in 1987. Twenty-one years later, we know that it has spurred 
important improvements in the quality of care provided in nursing 
homes. Yet we are far from finished, and there are additional 
improvements that need to be made.
  The first is in the area of transparency. If consumers can easily 
tell which homes have a solid enforcement track record, which are well-
staffed, which are owned by a chain with a good reputation for 
providing excellent services--and which homes are not--then this sort 
of disclosure can serve as a powerful motivation for homes to provide 
the best possible care, to hire and keep the most dedicated staff, and 
to always prioritize the interests of residents. The court of public 
opinion and the strength of market forces are powerful and inexpensive 
tools we should be putting to good use.
  Our legislation will make sure all this information is available to 
consumers in a timely and easy-to-use fashion. We want Americans to be 
able to use the Federal Government's Web site, Nursing Home Compare, 
with ease. We want Americans to have access to the type of information 
that matters, such as the number of hours of care their loved one will 
receive from staff every day. We want Americans to be able to use this 
Web site to lodge complaints of mistreatment or neglect. These are 
simple, effective ideas, and our bill will make them a reality.
  The second area in need of improvement is our Government's system of 
nursing home quality enforcement. Under the current system, nursing 
homes that are not providing good care, or--even worse--are putting 
their residents in harms way, can escape penalty from the Government by 
abusing a lengthy appeal process, while they slip in and out of 
compliance with Federal regulations. This is unacceptable. We need the 
threat of sanctions to mean something--and under my bill with Senator 
Grassley, they will. Our legislation will require that all civil 
monetary penalties be collected and placed in an escrow account as soon 
as they are levied, pending the final resolution of any appeal. 
Financial penalties will be increased for serious quality deficiencies 
that cause actual harm to nursing home residents or put them in 
``immediate jeopardy.''
  In addition, our policy enables regulators to respond effectively 
when serious quality problems are evident in order to protect the 
safety of residents. The bill requires that States and facilities 
provide a secure and orderly process when relocating residents due to a 
nursing home closure. It also proposes national demonstrations to 
promote innovations in information technology and ``culture change'' in 
order to improve resident care.
  The Federal Government now spends $75 billion annually on nursing 
homes through Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is projected to rise 
as costs associated with the boomer generation increase. Congress has a 
responsibility to demand high-quality services for residents and 
accountability from the nursing home industry in return for this huge 
investment of public resources. I urge my colleagues to join

[[Page 2295]]

Senator Grassley and myself in sponsoring this commonsense piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 2642. A bill to establish a national renewable energy standard, to 
extend and create renewable energy tax incentives, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the American 
Renewable Energy Act which I am introducing today, along with my 
colleagues, Senator Snowe from Maine and Senator Cantwell from 
Washington.
  Last week, we passed a short-term stimulus package that will help 
change the economic direction of this country by putting money in the 
hands of American families, including our seniors and veterans. Last 
week's action was a start, but we must begin focusing on long-term 
policies that will help our economy long after these rebate checks have 
been cashed. If we do not do that, we are going to be back exactly in 
the place we were before. We need long-term policies that will 
encourage sustainable economic growth in every corner of this country.
  In January, I traveled all around my State on a Main Street tour of 
Minnesota. We talked about the economic challenges facing the people of 
our State, but we also talked about the opportunities. Energy was a 
topic that came up everywhere. It came up when people were filling up 
their cars and trucks with gas, and it came up when we talked about the 
opportunities.
  I visited southwestern Minnesota, which is home to hundreds of large-
scale wind turbines, helping to make Minnesota the Nation's third 
largest producer of wind energy. Along with ethanol, these wind-energy 
farms have spurred a rural economic renaissance in our part of the 
State.
  For example, in 1995, SMI & Hydraulics, Inc., began their business in 
Porter, MN, primarily as a welding and cylinder repair shop for local 
farmers and businesses. Today, SMI & Hydraulics manufactures the bases 
for the wind towers we sell all across this country. It just recently 
expanded its facility to 100,000 square feet and created over 100 new 
jobs, many of which are traditional manufacturing jobs.
  My colleagues have to understand, these places are like barns. They 
started out as farmers' barns and have expanded and expanded as they 
have been able to meet this country's rising energy needs.
  The success of companies such as SMI & Hydraulics is not unique to 
Minnesota. Renewable energy has been a bright spot in an otherwise 
lagging economy. Last year, the renewable electricity sector pumped 
more than $20 billion into the U.S. economy, generating tens of 
thousands of jobs in construction, transportation, and manufacturing.
  Throughout the country, renewable energy has led us down a path 
toward new jobs, lower energy bills, and enhanced economic development. 
That is why today I am introducing this bill, along with my friends 
Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell, to help lead us further down the 
path to a better, cleaner, more prosperous energy future, with new 
opportunities for investment, innovation, and job creation.
  Our bill, as I said, is called the American Renewable Energy Act. 
There are two key elements of this legislation.
  First, the American Renewable Energy Act creates strong, consistent 
incentives for private sector investment in renewable energy resources 
and technology by extending tax incentives, such as the production tax 
credit, for 5 years. Of course, this covers wind, solar, geothermal, 
hydro, and other forms of renewable energy, and making sure that is in 
place so we can spur the kind of investment that will create jobs and 
allow us to be on the same path other countries around the world are 
on.
  Second, the legislation establishes a national renewable energy 
standard requiring that 20 percent of our energy come from renewable 
sources, such as wind, solar, and biofuels, by the year 2025. A 
national renewable energy standard will create a large market for clean 
sources of energy, reducing global warming pollution, and strengthening 
our economy.
  Let me briefly describe each of these elements. First, the renewable 
energy tax incentives. Already the industries for solar, wind, and 
biomass are expanding at annual rates exceeding 30 percent. But at the 
same time, we are no longer the world leader in two important clean 
energy fields. Even though all the technology was developed in our 
country, we rank third in wind power production behind Denmark and 
Spain, and we are now third in photovoltaic power installed, behind 
Germany and Japan.
  Ironically, these countries surpassed us largely by adopting 
technologies that had been first developed here in the United States. 
We came up with the right ideas, but we didn't capitalize on these 
incentives by having these innovations, by having the right policies in 
place to support their commercial development and rise and support the 
jobs that would have come with developing the technology. Our foreign 
competition was able to leapfrog over American businesses because these 
other countries have government-driven investment incentives, 
aggressive renewable energy targets, and other bold national policies.
  What I am proposing with my legislation is a package of tax 
incentives to spur investment in advanced clean technologies to serve 
the growing market for renewable energy sources. Specifically, in the 
bill Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell and I are introducing today, we 
want to extend and expand the existing Federal production tax credit 
for renewable energy, and I want to make sure it is a long-term credit 
and businesses will have the clarity and certainty they need to make 
their own large-scale, long-term capital investments in these 
technologies.
  Currently, the production tax credit and other key energy efficiency 
tax incentives are set to expire at the end of this year. Our 
legislation will extend these tax incentives for 5 years.
  To pay for these incentives, the legislation will repeal several tax 
giveaways that currently go to the major oil companies. ExxonMobil 
shattered another record profit, earning $11.7 billion last quarter and 
totaling over $40 billion in profits in 2007. Big oil doesn't need 
these tax incentives, but our rural economies do.
  Over the years, the production tax credit has been a problem because 
of its short-term green light-red light nature. The cycle begins with 
strong investment and growth in the renewable power industry, thanks to 
the tax incentive, but then the investment and growth slow down as the 
tax incentive nears expiration and is allowed to lapse. When the 
incentive gets restored, the renewable power industry takes time to 
regain its footing, and then experiences strong growth again until the 
incentive nears expiration again. Up and down, up and down, up and 
down. It is no way to run a government policy that should be geared 
toward creating more jobs in our country.
  In fact, the American Wind Energy Association has recently noted that 
the slowdown in wind industry activity actually starts about 8 months 
before the tax credit's expiration date. These are large-scale, 
capital-intensive projects that often take long years to develop. But 
uncertainty about the future of the production tax credit discourages 
project development and investment. Extending the tax credit for 5 
years would create a much stronger incentive and investment environment 
for renewable energy development.
  Simply put, a new economic sector is emerging. It is one that can 
shift the Nation's economy to clean energy production, generation, and 
use. But without the continued support of tax incentives to help this 
emerging industry compete on a level playing field, the opportunity 
will be lost.
  Over the past few years, the solar energy industry has witnessed 
unprecedented growth. This growth pumped over $2 billion into the U.S. 
economy and created 6,000 new jobs. Developing solar energy is an 
economic engine for our country. From 2006 to 2007, the job

[[Page 2296]]

base in the solar energy industry grew by 103 percent. Almost all of 
this growth is directly attributable to the solar investment tax 
credits that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. If we 
allow these credits to expire, those jobs will dry up. We will lose out 
on creating new companies and we will lose out on creating new 
opportunities for clean energy.
  I have focused on wind and solar, but there are amazing opportunities 
in other renewable energy fields, including hydro. There are amazing 
opportunities with geothermal. But we are never going to reach the full 
potential for jobs in this country if we keep going back and forth, up 
and down. We have to have a policy that is geared to the long term.
  I will also say that in visiting with farmers and ranchers around our 
State, the other thing we need to do--but we will have to focus on in 
another bill--is look at creating incentives for individuals and small 
businesses that may want to put up their own wind turbine. That is a 
subject for another day, but we have to do everything we can to promote 
this renewable energy.
  The second element in this legislation would provide an additional 
incentive for investment in renewable energy technology and resources. 
It would establish an aggressive, nationwide renewable electricity 
standard, one requiring that all electricity providers generate or 
purchase 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the 
year 2025.
  Currently, as I show on this chart here, there are 24 States, plus 
the District of Columbia, that have renewable electricity standards. 
Together, these States account for more than half of the electricity 
sales in the United States. You can see what these States are doing 
here. All on their own, the States have risen to the occasion, and 
said: Well, the Federal Government isn't doing anything, so I guess we 
will do it on our own.
  California is at 20 percent, Minnesota at 27.4 percent by 2025--one 
of the most aggressive standards in the country. Bipartisan agreement, 
a Democratic legislature, and a Republican Governor reached this 
agreement with our utilities, including Excel Industry signing on and 
not opposing this agreement. We have New York at 24 percent, Wisconsin 
at 10 percent by 2015; 15 percent by 2015 for Montana--15 percent by 
2020. Look at these States along the way, all over this country, and we 
are seeing these standards taking place.
  While Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and other States are already 
headed down the path toward a new clean energy economy, the Federal 
Government hasn't even made it to the trail yet. The Federal Government 
is still stuck in the fossil age. There is a famous phrase: ``the 
laboratories of democracy.'' That is how Supreme Court Justice Louis 
Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system. In 
this model, States are where new ideas emerge and innovative proposals 
are tested. But Brandeis did not mean for this to serve as an excuse 
for inaction by the Federal Government. Good ideas and successful 
innovations are supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a 
model for national policy and action. The responsibility is on us.
  We know what is going on in these States around the country. The 
courage we are seeing in the States as they seize opportunities offered 
by renewable energy should be matched by courage in Washington. I think 
it is time for the Federal Government to follow the lead of Minnesota, 
Washington, Maine, and other States around the country and adopt a 
forward-looking renewable energy standard.
  There are many benefits from having a strong national standard. It 
would save money for American consumers, as much as $100 billion in 
lower electricity and natural gas bills. It would aid in the fight 
against climate change by preventing well over 3 billion tons of carbon 
dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere by 2030. It would create 
jobs and increase income across the country, especially in rural areas. 
Each large utility-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates over 
$1.5 million in economic activity. Each turbine provides about $5,000 
in lease payments for 20 years or more to farmers, ranchers, or other 
landowners.
  You can see from this chart the job creation with this national 
renewable electricity standard set at 20 percent--355,000 new jobs, 
nearly twice as much as generating electricity from fossil fuels; $72.6 
billion in new capital investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers, 
ranchers, and rural landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenues.
  Then look at these consumer savings--$49 billion in lower electricity 
and natural gas bills; a healthier environment; reductions in global 
warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road; 
less air pollution, damage to land, and less water use. These are the 
benefits.
  We pay for it by taking back some of those tax giveaways we give to 
those oil companies--ExxonMobil, $11.7 billion in one quarter. So are 
we going to give them more money or try to create 355,000 new jobs in 
this country? That is the choice.
  I believe the combination of an aggressive renewable electricity 
standard and a strong package of tax incentives can begin to move our 
Nation to a new, cleaner, and more prosperous energy path. It is long 
overdue. The private sector is already beginning to invest in this 
energy future, and they are ready to invest more. But our Government 
must provide the right policies and incentives so they will be prepared 
to make the large-scale, long-term investments that are required to 
make it happen.
  The opportunities are enormous for creating new technologies, new 
industries, new businesses, and new jobs, while at the same time 
promoting our energy independence, strengthening our national security, 
and protecting our global environment. This piece of legislation, 
cosponsored by my friends Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell, this 
bipartisan piece of legislation is about leading the new economy, not 
following along; not doing countless rebate checks after rebate 
checks--which we need to do right now, but we are never going to get on 
the path to a new economic future unless we lead the way, and this is 
Washington's time to lead. This is about making America the global 
energy leader instead of the lagger. It is about creating a better 
economy for the next generation by leading a whole new industry. It is 
about not being complacent. It is about getting on a new energy path.
  I believe an aggressive renewable electricity standard, coupled with 
strong tax incentives, leads us down this path. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the American Renewable Energy Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 2647. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fan assisted, 
plugin, scented oil dispensing, electrothermic appliances; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would temporarily suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air 
fresheners imported by S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine, 
WI.
  I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in 
our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has 
enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps 
manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2001, Wisconsin has been hit 
hard, losing over 63,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing 
sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity and higher standards 
of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. 
The production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so 
many Amerian families healthy and strong.
  This legislation would suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air 
fresheners which S.C. Johnson assembles and packages in Racine, WI. 
Currently, there is no domestic manufacturer, which forces S.C. Johnson 
to import the product that has a 2.7 percent tariff. Suspending the 
tariff will cut production costs, keep jobs at home and allow S.C. 
Johnson to be more competitive in the global marketplace.
  S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and 
today is

[[Page 2297]]

one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products 
including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect 
repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 3,000 
people in Wisconsin and provides products in more than 110 countries 
around the world.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 2648. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
improve programs carried out through youth opportunity grants, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the STEP-UP 
Act. The STEP-UP Act is a comprehensive policy solution directed toward 
fighting unemployment, particularly among less educated African 
American men, by implementing innovative and 
successful job training efforts and improving existing tools like the 
Earned Income Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
  In America and my home state of New York there is a growing crisis of 
joblessness for African American men. The crisis is profound, 
persistent and perplexing. Across the country and in our own backyard, 
far too many black men lack an adequate education and face difficulty 
finding and keeping work. The numbers are staggering and getting worse.
  Poverty is not new. African American disadvantage is--sadly--not new. 
But now is the time for fresh solutions and urgent action, especially 
now that we are facing an economic recession. We know all too well, 
that when our economy faces a downturn, the most vulnerable members of 
the labor force face the greatest challenges in the job market.
  My goal today is to both shine a firm spotlight on a problem has 
received scant attention, inadequate resources, intermittent focus and 
poor coordination and also to introduce legislation that will offer 
some solid, practical steps forward. To be clear, the provisions in the 
STEP-UP ACT will be open to all Americans, but the legislation contains 
services and incentives that are particularly needed among young 
African American men.
  I am introducing the STEP-UP ACT for several reasons.
  First, the problem of African American male unemployment is severe 
and it is worsening. Consider this: In 2000, 65 percent of black male 
high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless--in other words not 
looking or unable to find work--and by 2004, the share had grown to 72 
percent ``jobless.'' That translates to almost one out of three men. By 
comparison the rate for white male high school dropouts was 34 
percent and Hispanic males 19 percent. Between 1992 and 1999--the 
greatest economic expansion in our nation's history--the labor force 
participation of young black men actually declined from 83.5 percent to 
79.4 percent. Clearly the rising tide did not lift all boats.
  Second, there is an unprecedented need to fill unskilled and semi 
skilled jobs across the countries as baby boomers retire, and there is 
a large supply of jobless black men who could fill them.
  Third, after much trial and error, we now have several successful job 
training programs that work, as well as federal policy options with a 
proven track record of making a real difference in the labor force. Yet 
sadly, while the programs are finally working, the Federal funding has 
gone down by 90 percent.
  There is a complex interplay of forces that led us to this point, and 
many of them are familiar culprits such as: Failing schools, 
dysfunctional families, high incarceration rates, overt and subtle 
racism, and the decimation of manufacturing jobs that typically 
afforded opportunities to men.
  All these political, cultural, economic and personal elements combine 
to erect a steeplechase of barriers that is far too difficult to 
traverse for far too many urban black men.
  While this is a sensitive subject, there is also a subculture of the 
street that provides easy money and allows some to eschew personal 
responsibility. But we can't sit passively by and let that subculture 
claim another generation of these men. The public sector--on all 
levels--has an obligation to intercede. The Reverend Johnny Ray 
Youngblood, a pastor and friend of mine from Brooklyn, said it best: 
``Government has a moral responsibility to compete against, and win 
against, subcultures that are immoral, illegal and really inhuman.''
  Let me be clear: There is a host of dedicated, even heroic, leaders 
who have been addressing these issues every day for years. There are 
ideas and leaders out there can turn this problem around. However, on 
the Federal level, there has been no comprehensive public policy 
response to this situation. We have allowed the problems of black men 
to grow worse unabated.
  Last year, as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I held a 
hearing on this very issue. Our witnesses provided testimony that 
vividly illustrated how devastating this crisis truly is. This hearing 
was an eye-opener for me and my colleagues. The hearing also began a 
dialog in Congress on how we can move forward legislatively to expand 
job opportunities and incentives for African American men.
  I believe there is a rare confluence of forces that should be 
exploited--now--to ramp up efforts to aggressively attack the plight of 
jobless black men. The American labor force is in transition and 
therein lies the opportunity. By 2010 as many as 64 million Americans 
from the generations born before and after World War II will approach 
retirement age. Over this period we will be losing 20 percent of our 
entire workforce--a turnover rate the likes of which our country has 
never experienced.
  Many of the new jobs I am speaking about don't require college 
degrees, many are entry level, but many can pay upwards of $40,000 with 
benefits. And the best part is, they can't be outsourced or downsized--
because they're crucial to keeping cities working. A nurse, welder, 
mechanic or long-haul commercial driver doesn't do us any good if he or 
she is working in Bangalore. We have never before had such a clear 
picture of where the jobs will be--or what we have to do to connect our 
struggling young people to them.
  What we need to do now is ensure that black men have access to the 
best, most successful job training programs that can prepare them for 
these jobs. After years of trying, I believe there is a new paradigm 
for job training that will make this possible. For the past year, I 
have been working on the STEP-UP Act to do just that.
  Let me tell you about one innovative job training program that was 
founded in East Harlem but has been replicated successfully throughout 
the United States and Europe: its called STRIVE and it offers some good 
clues on what makes a job program work.
  Here is the most important thing you need to know about STRIVE: 70 
percent of their graduates retain their jobs after 2 years, compared to 
a 40 percent city-wide average. I visited them to see firsthand how 
they do it. It impressed me so much I brought 3 Senators to visit 
STRIVE's offices in Washington, DC, and it blew their hair back as 
well.
  First, STRIVE's core program does not begin with teaching 
participants how to read an account ledger or hammer in a nail. It 
begins with what they call ``soft skills'' like how to dress for work, 
interact with your boss and superiors, and accept criticism. Seems 
obvious enough, but for many it is harder than it should be to tell the 
difference between constructive criticism and a provocative ``dis'' 
that, in the code of the street, demands an aggressive reaction.
  In addition to focusing on those elemental ``soft skills,'' STRIVE 
provides intensive follow-up, long-term involvement with additional 
training opportunities, and wrap-around services to address the whole 
host of obstacles that black men face when trying to enter and remain 
in the workforce.
  Our current Federal job-training program--the Workforce Investment 
Act--WIA--has been steadily underfunded in recent years. To give a 
sense of how much we have walked away from such initiatives, in 1978 we 
spent $9.5 billion on jobs programs--$30 billion in today's

[[Page 2298]]

dollars. In 2007 we spent only $5.1 billion. On top of that, WIA does 
not mandate or even encourage the STRIVE model. The WIA program hasn't 
been reauthorized since it expired in 2003 and it needs to be updated 
to incorporate the lessons of STRIVE.
  My bill, the STEP-UP Act, moves our job training agenda closer to the 
STRIVE model. If we can duplicate some semblage of STRIVE's 70 percent 
success rates--which they have duplicated in 22 locations around the 
country--we can begin to really move the employment needle in the right 
direction.
  The STEP-UP Act reauthorizes funding for the Youth Opportunity 
Program, YO, which was originally established in 1998 to provide grants 
to programs that offer intensive job training and placement services 
for hard-to-serve youth between the ages of 16 to 24. When it was 
created, the YO program was meant to be the ``model'' job training 
program, the shining star in a system replete with false starts and 
failed efforts. It drew on the best practices from a generation of 
previous job training efforts, understanding that attacking the scourge 
of unemployment meant offering comprehensive services to at risk youth. 
Preparing young men and women for the workforce has to be more than 
just teaching someone to touch-type or hammer a nail. A job training 
program can put anyone into a job, but their efforts will only be 
successful if we give them a comprehensive skill set and support 
services.
  This legislation draws on the strengths of the YO program but makes 
some important modifications based on the experience of grantees. 
First, programs that receive YO grants will be required to provide 
``wrap-around'' services. This means not only workforce training, but 
also those ``soft skills'' that are so essential to keeping a job.
  Secondly, the STEP-UP Act encourages grantees to engage with local 
resources, such as labor organizations, educational institutions, as 
well as the private sector. By bringing in private businesses, we can 
truly bridge the gap between training and employment.
  Finally, to make sure we don't travel willy-nilly down the same path, 
we must invest in proven models, we must track progress and we must 
make adjustments to improve programs as the facts flow in. That is why 
the STEP-UP Act mandates strict oversight of job training programs that 
will participate in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs. My bill 
requires the Secretary of Labor to perform evaluations of participants 
after the 24 months and report to Congress on the best practices 
implemented by participants. Too frequently, we have funded job 
training efforts but we have not demanded results. The Department of 
Labor needs to dedicate themselves to understanding what programs work 
best and why.
  To summarize for a moment: we know the jobs are out there for young 
black men, we know there are training programs that work, so what's the 
missing link? The missing link is ensuring that work pays well enough 
to help lure young men into the workforce.
  Given the limited earning potential for many young African American 
males, there can be a lot of bottom line reasons not to work in the 
formal economy. Working a tough job in a warehouse for $7 an hour would 
put less than $300 a week and around $13,000 a year in your pocket. In 
2008, those wages don't go too far.
  We need to make work pay for African American men.
  The STEP-UP Act offers an economic incentive to join the workforce 
through a targeted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. My 
bill doubles the current credit from $438 up to $875. Effectively, this 
broadens the scope of the credit and you will be able to receive some 
credit up until your income reaches $22,880. For someone without kids 
or a family to support, the extra money you would get from this program 
would make a real difference.
  The second thing my bill does is extend the EITC to those low-wage 
earners who have kids and are current on their child support payments. 
There are lots of men out there who really want to work and do right by 
their families. It can be an uphill battle for them, but many find a 
way to make it happen.
  Considering that about a third of low-income noncustodial fathers 
nationwide are black, a federal EITC expansion could have a big impact 
for them. Here is how my bill does it: If you are a dad paying your 
child support, the existing childless tax credit is quadrupled from 
$438 to $1,719 a year. This is still much smaller than the credit a 
family with one child will receive, which is $2,917 in 2008.
  Let me be clear: enhancing the EITC is not just about getting men 
working but about strengthening families, and encouraging low-income 
fathers to fulfill their parenting responsibilities and stay current on 
their child support payments. Studies have documented a direct 
correlation between fathers who pay child support and their involvement 
in their children's lives. If we can get men working and they become a 
positive force in the lives of their sons and daughters, we will have 
achieved two very worthy objectives.
  The Earned Income Tax Credit is just one example of a tax incentive 
that translates to real dollars for working families. Another issue 
that I want to address is the problem of keeping people in the 
workforce. Too many men are cycling in and out of employment. We need 
to make steady employment pay.
  The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC, is one incentive that I 
think needs to be strengthened and modified. Currently, WOTC is only a 
credit for employers, and at its maximum it is worth $2,400 if the 
worker is employed for 400 hours or more. So if a worker making $7 an 
hour stays on the job for about 5 months, then his employer gets the 
maximum credit, but he does not receive anything for hitting this 
benchmark.
  The STEP-UP Act expands WOTC to include employees so that it is not 
only an employer credit, and to maximize its potential over time. 
Specifically, once a worker has reached 1,500 hours on the job, or 52 
weeks, both the employer and employee should get a $500 credit. We need 
to encourage employers to really invest in their workers and to ensure 
that workers are staying on the job.
  Today I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
carefully consider this legislation. Given the severity of the African 
American jobless problem and the unprecedented opportunity that will 
result from the mass retirement of workers from the post war 
generation, shame on us if we do not figure out how to take action to 
put people who want to work into jobs that pay. It is up to us to align 
these tools and make them work. We must. Not only must it be a moral 
imperative that we give more opportunity to African American men, it 
must be a national imperative to keep our country competitive in the 
21st century. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and take 
this initial step towards success.
  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. 2648

       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 ``Supporting Training and 
     Employment Potential for Underemployed Populations Act'' or 
     the ``STEP UP Act''.

                TITLE I--YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Finding employment that provides steady income and a 
     career track is a problem for young, undereducated men and 
     women who lack educational credentials and are disconnected 
     from the labor market.
       (2) That problem is particularly acute for young African-
     American men. In 2006, over \1/5\, or 21.8 percent, of black 
     men ages 16 through 24 were unemployed. This is roughly 
     double the unemployment rate for all young men (11.2 
     percent).
       (3) Even over a period of relative economic growth, 
     employment for disconnected African-American men has 
     declined. In 1999, 65

[[Page 2299]]

     percent of African-American male high school dropouts were 
     jobless and not looking for work. In 2004, that rate had 
     risen to 72 percent.
       (4) The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was established in 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide intensive job 
     training and placement activities as well as other 
     educational, social, and recreational services to at-risk, 
     hard-to-serve youth.
       (5) The Youth Opportunity Grant Program built upon the most 
     promising strategies of previous demonstration programs that 
     strongly suggest the effectiveness of intensive case 
     management and follow-up services in assisting disconnected 
     young men and women in finding long-term employment.
       (6) By reauthorizing and refining the Youth Opportunity 
     Grant Program, Congress could help make strides against those 
     serious problems faced by both young African-American men and 
     other disconnected youth.
       (7) Over the course of the Youth Opportunity Grant Program, 
     36 localities with high poverty rates received funding 
     through grants. The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was 
     effective in assisting hard-to-reach populations. The 
     Department of Labor estimates that 42 percent of the eligible 
     youth and 62 percent of the eligible out-of-school youth in 
     the target areas enrolled in the Youth Opportunity Grant 
     Program.
       (8) Further understanding of the successes of, challenges 
     faced by, and shortcomings of, the Youth Opportunity Grant 
     Program in the past, and in the future, will require 
     extensive evaluation and study by the Department of Labor.

     SEC. 102. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.

       Section 169 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2914) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 169. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.

       ``(a) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Using funds made available under 
     subsection (j), the Secretary shall make grants to eligible 
     local boards described in subsection (c) and eligible 
     entities described in subsection (d) to carry out programs 
     that provide activities described in subsection (b) for youth 
     and young adults. The boards and entities shall carry out the 
     programs to increase the long-term employment of youth and 
     young adults who seek assistance and who live in empowerment 
     zones, enterprise communities, or high poverty areas.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this section:
       ``(A) Hard-to-serve young adult.--The term `hard-to-serve 
     young adult' means an individual who is--
       ``(i) not less than age 25 and not more than age 30; and
       ``(ii)(I) an unemployed individual;
       ``(II) a school dropout;
       ``(III) an individual who has not received a secondary 
     school diploma or its recognized equivalent;
       ``(IV) an ex-offender; or
       ``(V) a noncustodial parent with a child support 
     obligation.
       ``(B) Youth or young adult.--The term `youth or young 
     adult' means an individual who is not less than age 14 and 
     not more than age 30.
       ``(3) Grant period.--The Secretary may make a grant under 
     this section for a 2-year period, and may renew the grant for 
     each of the 3 succeeding years.
       ``(4) Grant awards.--In making grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that grants are distributed 
     equitably among local boards and entities serving urban areas 
     and local boards and entities serving rural areas, taking 
     into consideration the poverty rate in such urban and rural 
     areas, as described in subsection (c)(3)(B).
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local board or entity that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the funds made available 
     through the grant to provide job training and employment 
     activities and related services, including--
       ``(A) activities that meet the requirements of section 129;
       ``(B) youth development activities such as activities 
     relating to leadership development, citizenship, and re-entry 
     from the justice and juvenile justice systems, community 
     service, and recreation activities; and
       ``(C)(i) workforce preparation and attitudinal training;
       ``(ii) sector-specific skills training as described in 
     subsection (f)(1)(D);
       ``(iii) educational completion services, including classes 
     that lead to a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
     equivalent (and programs to prepare for such a class), 
     remedial reading and mathematics classes (including classes 
     to prepare an individual to read and do mathematics at a 
     college level), and skills certification and credentialing 
     programs;
       ``(iv) access to internships, transitional jobs, work 
     experience, and nontraditional employment opportunities;
       ``(v) access to other services either directly or through 
     an organization that enters into a strategic partnership 
     described in subsection (e) with the local board or entity, 
     including parenting classes for fathers and mothers, 
     financial literacy services, services to improve health care 
     (and mental health care) treatment and access, and services 
     to improve access to affordable housing and shelter; and
       ``(vi) assistance in obtaining the earned income credit 
     under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     obtaining benefits through government entitlement programs, 
     such as the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) and unemployment 
     compensation programs, as well as other State and local 
     entitlement programs that may be applicable.
       ``(2) Intensive placement and follow-up services.--In 
     providing activities under this section, a local board or 
     entity shall provide--
       ``(A) intensive placement services; and
       ``(B) follow-up services, including case management, every 
     2 months for not less than 24 months after the completion of 
     participation in the other activities described in this 
     subsection, as appropriate.
       ``(3) Limitation on use for hard-to-serve young adults.--
     The local board or entity shall not use more than 25 percent 
     of the funds made available through the grant to provide 
     activities for hard-to-serve young adults.
       ``(c) Eligible Local Boards.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section, a local board shall serve a 
     community that--
       ``(1) has been designated as an empowerment zone or 
     enterprise community under section 1391 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(2)(A) is a State without a zone or community described 
     in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) has been designated as a high poverty area by the 
     Governor of the State; or
       ``(3) is 1 of 2 areas in a State that--
       ``(A) have been designated by the Governor as areas for 
     which a local board may apply for a grant under this section; 
     and
       ``(B) meet the poverty rate criteria set forth in 
     subsections (a)(4), (b), and (d) of section 1392 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(d) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, an entity (other than a local board) 
     shall--
       ``(1) be a recipient of financial assistance under section 
     166; and
       ``(2) serve a community that--
       ``(A) meets the poverty rate criteria set forth in 
     subsections (a)(4), (b), and (d) of section 1392 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(B) is located on an Indian reservation or serves 
     Oklahoma Indians, or Native villages or Native groups (as 
     such terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)).
       ``(e) Strategic Partnerships.--
       ``(1) Local boards.--An eligible local board may--
       ``(A) work independently to provide activities under this 
     section; or
       ``(B) enter into a strategic partnership to provide 
     activities under this section with 1 or more entities 
     consisting of--
       ``(i) a community-based job training provider who is an 
     eligible provider identified in accordance with section 
     122(e)(3), or another provider selected by the local board;
       ``(ii) State or local government entities;
       ``(iii) labor organizations;
       ``(iv) other entities described in the statement of need 
     required by subsection (f)(1)(C);
       ``(v) private sector employers;
       ``(vi) educational institutions, including secondary 
     schools (which may be public schools, parochial schools, or 
     other private schools) or community colleges; or
       ``(vii) entities in the judicial system, entities in the 
     juvenile justice system, or organizations representing 
     probation and parole officers.
       ``(2) Entities.--An eligible entity may--
       ``(A) work independently to provide activities under this 
     section; or
       ``(B) enter into a strategic partnership to provide 
     activities under this section with--
       ``(i) the local board; and
       ``(ii) 1 or more entities described in paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(f) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local board or entity shall submit an 
     application (individually or as part of a strategic 
     partnership described in subsection (e)) to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require, including--
       ``(1)(A) a description of the activities that the local 
     board or entity will provide under this section to youth and 
     young adults in the community described in subsection (c) or 
     (d);
       ``(B) a description of the strategic partnership referred 
     to in subsection (e), if any, that the applicant intends to 
     enter into to provide activities under this section;
       ``(C)(i) information describing how the applicant will 
     coordinate the planning and implementation of the activities 
     to be carried out under the grant with entities serving youth 
     in the community involved, including the one-stop operator 
     and one-stop partners in the local workforce investment 
     system, educational institutions including institutions of 
     higher education, child welfare agencies, entities in the 
     juvenile justice system, foster care agencies, and such other 
     community-based organizations as may be appropriate; and

[[Page 2300]]

       ``(ii) a statement of need for the community;
       ``(D) information identifying employment sectors in the 
     local and regional economy that could employ youth and young 
     adults served under the grant and a plan to provide sector-
     specific skills training for jobs in those sectors and 
     employment opportunities in those sectors; and
       ``(E) information identifying the specific role, if any, 
     that private sector employers in growing employment sectors 
     in the local and regional economy will play in that plan, 
     including information describing their skills training 
     curricula and job placement programs;
       ``(2) a description of the performance measures negotiated 
     under subsection (h), and the manner in which the local 
     boards or entities will carry out the activities to meet the 
     performance measures;
       ``(3) a description of the manner in which the activities 
     will be linked to activities described in section 129; and
       ``(4) a description of the community support, including 
     financial support through leveraging additional public and 
     private resources, for the activities.
       ``(g) Consideration.--In making grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall give special consideration to a local 
     board or entity that submits an application under subsection 
     (f) as part of a strategic partnership described in 
     subsection (e) that includes a private sector employer if the 
     employer agrees to--
       ``(1) commit to hire youth and young adults who complete 
     the program carried out under the grant involved;
       ``(2) provide personnel, facilities, equipment, and a 
     skills training curriculum for the program;
       ``(3) provide internships, mentoring, and apprenticeship 
     opportunities for participants in the program; or
       ``(4) provide funding, scholarships, and access to 
     specified employer-based resources for the program.
       ``(h) Performance Measures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall negotiate and reach 
     agreement with the local board or entity on performance 
     measures, for the indicators of performance referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 136(b)(2), that will be 
     used under paragraph (3) to evaluate the performance of the 
     local board or entity in carrying out the activities 
     described in subsection (b). Each local performance measure 
     shall consist of such an indicator of performance, and a 
     performance level referred to in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Performance levels.--The Secretary shall negotiate 
     and reach agreement with the local board or entity regarding 
     the--
       ``(A) overall performance levels expected to be achieved by 
     the local board or entity on the indicators of performance; 
     and
       ``(B) separate performance levels for those indicators for 
     the performance of the board or entity--
       ``(i) regarding participants in the activities who are not 
     less than age 14 and not more than age 24; and
       ``(ii) regarding participants in the activities who are not 
     less than age 25 and not more than age 30.
       ``(3) Evaluations and reports.--
       ``(A) Evaluations.--
       ``(i) Evaluations of prior activities.--Not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of the Supporting Training 
     and Employment Potential for Underemployed Populations Act, 
     the Secretary shall complete the evaluations described in 
     paragraph (1) of local boards and entities, using performance 
     measures with overall performance levels described in 
     paragraph (2)(A), concerning activities carried out under 
     subsection (b) prior to that date of enactment.
       ``(ii) Evaluations of new activities.--Not later than 2 
     years after a local board or entity receives a grant under 
     this section after that date of enactment, the Secretary 
     shall conduct the evaluations described in paragraph (1) of 
     that local board or entity, using performance measures with 
     overall performance levels described in paragraph (2)(A) and 
     performance measures with separate performance levels 
     described in paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(iii) Comparison groups.--The evaluations conducted under 
     this paragraph shall include evaluations of carefully matched 
     comparison groups.
       ``(B) Reports.--The Secretary shall prepare a report, based 
     on the evaluations described in subparagraph (A)(i), that 
     contains the baseline data obtained and that begins to detail 
     the best practices of recipients of grants under this section 
     throughout the Nation. The Secretary shall prepare an annual 
     report, based on the evaluations described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), that contains the data obtained and that details the 
     best practices of recipients of grants under this section 
     throughout the Nation, with attention to how different 
     activities impact both different demographic sectors of the 
     population and different age groups in the population.
       ``(4) Use.--If the Secretary, in conducting evaluations 
     under paragraph (3), determines that a local board or entity 
     fails to meet the performance measures for 2 fiscal years, 
     the local board or entity shall not be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section for a subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(i) Incentives for Business Partners.--The Secretary 
     shall establish a plan to increase the availability of bonds 
     through the Federal Bonding Program carried out through the 
     Employment and Training Administration to employers that are 
     partners in the programs carried out under this section.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 127 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2852) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``sections'' and inserting ``section''; and
       (B) by striking ``and 169'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``provide youth 
     opportunity'' and all that follows through ``grants) and''; 
     and
       (B) by striking clause (iv).

             TITLE II--EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Earned Income Tax Credit 
     Enhancement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The earned income tax credit is considered one of the 
     most successful antipoverty programs in the United States. 
     Previous expansions of the earned income tax credit in the 
     1990s were instrumental in lifting families, especially 
     single parents, out of poverty by increasing income and 
     building assets.
       (2) However, the earned income tax credit provides little 
     assistance for childless workers and noncustodial parents. 
     The credit for childless workers is only 15 percent of the 
     credit for a worker with 1 child.
       (3) Increasing the maximum earned income tax credit amount 
     for childless workers would help to lift more individuals out 
     of poverty and mirror the successful credit expansion of the 
     1990s. Additionally, lowering the age of eligibility will 
     extend this important credit to the growing population of 
     young adults living in poverty.
       (4) Although the effectiveness of the work opportunity tax 
     credit has come under scrutiny, the credit is limited in 
     scope. The credit is only available to employers and offers 
     no benefits to employees to encourage job retention. 
     Additionally, the credit only addresses short-term job 
     retention, not long-term employment.
       (5) Expanding the work opportunity credit to employees and 
     increasing the time period of the credit's availability could 
     provide greater incentives for employees to stay in their 
     jobs and for employers to retain these workers over long-term 
     periods.

     SEC. 203. ENHANCEMENTS TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Credit Allowed for Certain Childless Individuals Over 
     Age 18.--
       (1) In general.--Subclause (II) of section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible 
     individual) is amended by striking ``age 25'' and inserting 
     ``age 21''.
       (2) Exception for full-time students.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 32(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Exception for full time students.--The term `eligible 
     individual' shall not include any individual described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) if such individual has not attained the 
     age of 25 before the close of the taxable year and is a full 
     time student for more than one half of such taxable year.''.
       (b) Modification of Credit Amount for Individuals Without 
     Qualifying Children.--
       (1) Modification of credit percentage.--The last row in the 
     table in section 32(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``7.65'' in the middle column and 
     inserting ``15.30''.
       (2) Modification of phaseout amount.--Subparagraph (A) of 
     section 32(b)(2) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) in the case of an eligible individual with 1 
     qualifying child--

       ``(I) the earned income amount is $6,330, and
       ``(II) the phaseout amount is $11,610,

       ``(ii) in the case of an eligible individual with 2 or more 
     qualifying children--

       ``(I) the earned income amount is $8,890, and
       ``(II) the phaseout amount is $11,610, and

       ``(iii) in the case of an eligible individual with no 
     qualifying children--

       ``(I) the earned income amount is $4,220, and
       ``(II) the phaseout amount is 200 percent of the dollar 
     amount applicable under subclause (I).''.

       (c) Increased Credit for Certain Individuals Without 
     Qualifying Children.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Increased credit for certain individuals without 
     qualifying children.--In the case of an eligible individual 
     described in

[[Page 2301]]

     subparagraph (C), the credit percentage under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be 30.6 percent.
       ``(C) Eligible individual described.--An eligible 
     individual is described in this subparagraph with respect to 
     a taxable year if--
       ``(i) with respect to such eligible individual for the 
     taxable year, another individual--

       ``(I) bears a relationship to the eligible individual 
     described in section 152(c)(2),
       ``(II) meets the requirements of section 152(c)(3), and
       ``(III) has the same principal place of abode as the 
     eligible individual for less than one-half of such taxable 
     year,

       ``(ii) such eligible individual is required to make child 
     support payments with respect to the individual described in 
     clause (i), and
       ``(iii) such eligible individual has made all such required 
     child support payments during the taxable year.

     For purposes of clause (iii), an eligible individual shall be 
     treated as having made all required child support payments 
     during a taxable year if such eligible individual has made 
     child support payments in an amount not less than the total 
     amount of child support payments required for such eligible 
     individual for such taxable year.''.
       (2) Notification of failure to pay child support.--Section 
     464(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 664(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall use notices of past-due support 
     under this section in administering the earned income tax 
     credit under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     for eligible individuals described in subsection (b)(1)(C) of 
     such section. The regulations promulgated pursuant to this 
     subsection shall require States to submit such notices at a 
     time adequate to allow the Secretary to properly administer 
     such credit for such individuals.''.
       (d) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Section 901 of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to 
     sunset provisions) shall not apply to the amendments made by 
     section 303 of such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief 
     for earned income credit; earned income to include only 
     amounts includible in gross income; simplification of earned 
     income credit).
       (e) Election to Average Earned Income.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 32(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Election to Average Earned Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--Under rules established by the 
     Secretary, in the case of an eligible individual who has made 
     an election under this subsection, subsection (a) shall be 
     applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `the taxpayer's 2-year averaged 
     earned income' for `the taxpayer's earned income for the 
     taxable year' in paragraph (1) thereof, and
       ``(B) by substituting `2-year averaged earned income' for 
     `earned income' in paragraph (2)(B) thereof.
       ``(2) 2-year averaged earned income.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `2-year averaged earned income' means, 
     with respect to any taxable year, the average of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's earned income for such taxable year, 
     and
       ``(B) the taxpayer's earned income for the preceding 
     taxable year.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.

     SEC. 204. CARRYBACK AND CARRYFORWARD OF STANDARD DEDUCTION 
                   AND PERSONAL EXEMPTION DEDUCTIONS.

       (a) Standard Deduction.--Section 63 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to taxable income defined) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Carryback and Carryforward of Deductions for 
     Individuals Who Do Not Itemize.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an eligible taxpayer, if 
     the sum of the deductions described in subsection (b) exceeds 
     the amount of the adjusted gross income of such taxpayer for 
     such taxable year (hereinafter in this subsection referred to 
     as the `unused deduction year'), such excess may be--
       ``(A) carried back to the preceding taxable year, and
       ``(B) carried forward to each of the 2 taxable years 
     following the unused deduction year
       ``(2) Amount carried to each year.--
       ``(A) Entire amount carried to first year.--The entire 
     amount of the unused deduction for an unused deduction year 
     shall be carried to the earliest of the 3 taxable years to 
     which (by reason of paragraph (1)) such deduction may be 
     carried.
       ``(B) Amount carried to other 2 years.--The amount of the 
     unused deduction for the unused deduction year shall be 
     carried to each of the other 2 taxable years to the extent 
     that such unused deduction may not be used for a prior 
     taxable year because of the amount of adjusted gross income 
     of the taxpayer for such taxable year.
       ``(3) Eligible taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `eligible taxpayer' means, with respect to any 
     taxable year, a taxpayer with respect to whom a credit under 
     section 32 is allowable for such taxable year.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 205. ADVANCED REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR MEMBERS OF TARGETED 
                   GROUPS.

       (a) Allowance of Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as 
     section 37 and by inserting after section 35 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 36. EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR MEMBERS OF TARGETED GROUPS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible 
     individual, there shall be allowed as credit against the tax 
     imposed by this title for the taxable year an amount equal to 
     $500.
       ``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `eligible individual' means an 
     individual who is a member of a targeted group and--
       ``(A) who--
       ``(i) has worked exactly 1,500 hours for an employer during 
     any period beginning on the date such individual was hired 
     and ending with or within the taxable year, and
       ``(ii) was continuously employed by such employer during 
     such period, or
       ``(B) who--
       ``(i) began work with an employer during any 52-week period 
     ending with or within such taxable year, and
       ``(ii) was continuously employed by such employer during 
     such 52-week period.
       ``(2) Member of a targeted group.--The term `member of a 
     targeted group' has the meaning given such term under section 
     51(d).
       ``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
       ``(1) only 1 employer may be taken into account with 
     respect to any eligible individual for any taxable year, and
       ``(2) an individual may not be treated as an eligible 
     individual more than once with respect to any employer.

     For purposes of this subsection, rules similar to the rules 
     of subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 shall apply.
       ``(d) Coordination With Advance Payments.--
       ``(1) Recapture of excess advance payments.--If any payment 
     is made to the individual by an employer under section 3511 
     during any calendar year, then the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the individual's last taxable year beginning in 
     such calendar year shall be increased by the aggregate amount 
     of such payments.
       ``(2) Reconciliation of payments advanced and credit 
     allowed.--Any increase in tax under paragraph (1) shall not 
     be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any credit (other than the credit 
     allowed by subsection (a)) allowed under this part.
       ``(e) Coordination With Certain Means Tested Programs.--For 
     purposes of--
       ``(1) the United States Housing Act of 1937,
       ``(2) title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
       ``(3) section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act 
     of 1965,
       ``(4) sections 221(d)(3), 235, and 236 of the National 
     Housing Act, and
       ``(5) the Food Stamp Act of 1977,

     sany refund made to an individual (or the spouse of an 
     individual) by reason of this section, and any payment made 
     to such individual (or such spouse) by an employer under 
     section 3511, shall not be treated as income (and shall not 
     be taken into account in determining resources for the month 
     of its receipt and the following month).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end ``, or 
     enacted by section 204 of the Earned Income Tax Credit 
     Enhancement Act of 2007''.
       (B) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by redesignating the item relating to section 
     36 as relating to section 37 and by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 35 the following new item:

``Sec. 36. Employment credit for members of targeted groups.''.
       (b) Advanced Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 25 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to general provisions relating to employment 
     taxes) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 3511. ADVANCED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF TARGETED GROUPS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, every employer making a payment of wages for a 
     payroll period to an individual who is an eligible employee 
     with respect to such payroll period shall, at the time of 
     paying such wages, make an additional payment to such 
     employee of $500.
       ``(b) Eligible Employee.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `eligible employee' means, with respect to any payroll 
     period, an individual--
       ``(1) who is an eligible individual (as defined by section 
     36(b)), and
       ``(2) with respect to whom an eligibility certificate under 
     this section is in effect.

[[Page 2302]]

       ``(c) Eligibility Certificate.--For purposes of this title, 
     an eligibility certificate under this section is a statement 
     furnished by an employee to the employer which--
       ``(1) certifies that the employee is a member of a targeted 
     group (as defined in section 51(d)),
       ``(2) certifies that the employee does not have an 
     eligibility certificate under this section in effect for the 
     calendar year with respect to the payment of wages by another 
     employer, and
       ``(3) contains such other information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(d) Payments to Be Treated as Payments of Withholding and 
     FICA Taxes.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, payments 
     made by an employer under subsection (a) to his employees for 
     any payroll period--
       ``(A) shall not be treated as the payment of compensation, 
     and
       ``(B) shall be treated as made out of--
       ``(i) amounts required to be deducted and withheld for the 
     payroll period under section 3401 (relating to wage 
     withholding), and
       ``(ii) amounts required to be deducted for the payroll 
     period under section 3102 (relating to FICA employee taxes), 
     and
       ``(iii) amounts of the taxes imposed for the payroll period 
     under section 3111 (relating to FICA employer taxes),

     as if the employer had paid to the Secretary, on the day on 
     which the wages are paid to the employees, an amount equal to 
     such payments.
       ``(2) Advance payments exceed taxes due.--In the case of 
     any employer, if for any payroll period the sum of the 
     aggregate amount of payments under subsection (a) plus any 
     amount paid under section 3507 exceeds the sum of the amounts 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(B), each such advance payment 
     shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to 
     such excess as such advance payment bears to the aggregate 
     amount of all such advance payments.
       ``(3) Employer may make full advance payments.--The 
     Secretary shall prescribe regulations under which an employer 
     may elect (in lieu of any application of paragraph (2))--
       ``(A) to pay in full all amounts under subsection (a), and
       ``(B) to have additional amounts paid by reason of this 
     paragraph treated as the advance payment of taxes imposed by 
     this title.
       ``(4) Failure to make advance payments.--For purposes of 
     this title (including penalties), failure to make any advance 
     payment under this section at the time provided therefor 
     shall be treated as the failure at such time to deduct and 
     withhold under chapter 24 an amount equal to the amount of 
     such advance payment.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     25 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 3511. Advanced payment of employment credit for members of 
              targeted groups.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 206. MODIFICATIONS TO WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

       (a) Expansion to Youth Opportunity Program Participants, 
     WIA Youth Activity Participants, and Young Offenders.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of 
     targeted groups) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (H), and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(J) a youth opportunity program participant,
       ``(K) a qualified WIA youth activity participant, or
       ``(L) a qualified young offender.''.
       (2) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of section 51 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as paragraphs (14), (15), and 
     (16), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (10) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Youth opportunity program participant.--The term 
     `youth opportunity program participant' means an individual 
     who is certified by an eligible local board or eligible 
     entity (as such board and entity are described in section 169 
     of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998)--
       ``(A) as having completed a program carried out under that 
     section, and
       ``(B) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year 
     after the last date on which such individual completed such a 
     program.
       ``(12) Qualified wia youth activity participant.--The term 
     `qualified WIA youth activity participant' means any 
     individual who is certified by a designated local agency--
       ``(A) as an eligible youth (as defined in section 101 of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) who--
       ``(i) is not less than age 18 and not more than age 21, and
       ``(ii) has been enrolled in or has received a youth 
     activity (as so defined) under chapter 4 of subtitle B of 
     title I of such Act, and
       ``(B) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year 
     after the last date on which such individual was so enrolled 
     or so received such activity.
       ``(13) Qualified young offender.--The term `qualified young 
     offender' means any individual who is certified by a 
     designated local agency--
       ``(A) as being not less than age 18 and not more than age 
     21,
       ``(B) as having been convicted of a misdemeanor, and
       ``(C) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year 
     after the last date on which such individual was so convicted 
     or was released from prison.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Additional Work Opportunity Credit for Retained 
     Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 51 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amount of credit) 
     is amended by striking ``equal to 40 percent of the qualified 
     first-year wages for such year.'' and inserting ``equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(1) 40 percent of the qualified first year wages for such 
     year, plus
       ``(2) $500 for each retained employee.''.
       (2) Retained employee.--Section 51 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(l) Retained Employee.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `retained employee' means an employee who is a member of 
     a targeted group and--
       ``(1) who--
       ``(A) has worked exactly 1,500 hours for the taxpayer 
     during any period beginning on the date such employee was 
     hired and ending with or within the taxable year, and
       ``(B) was continuously employed by such taxpayer during 
     such period, or
       ``(2) who--
       ``(A) began work with the taxpayer during any 52-week 
     period ending with or within such taxable year, and
       ``(B) was continuously employed by such taxpayer during 
     such 52-week period.
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, no employee may be 
     treated as a retained employee more than once with respect to 
     any taxpayer.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 207. PUBLICATION OF CHANGES AND ASSISTANCE WITH 
                   PREPARATION.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall--
       (1) publicly disseminate information with respect to the 
     amendments made by this title (including the dissemination of 
     such information to State and local government one-stop job 
     centers), and
       (2) provide appropriate assistance to taxpayers (through 
     low-income taxpayer clinics and other sources) for the 
     purpose of allowing taxpayers to benefit from the amendments 
     made by this title. 
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Martinez, 
        Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 2650. A bill to provide for a 5-year carryback of certain net 
operating losses and to suspend the 90 percent alternative minimum tax 
limit on certain net operating losses; to the Committee on Finance. 
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation to expand a widely used business tax benefit whereby 
business owners balance out net losses over prior years when the 
business has a net operating gain. Spreading out this tax liability 
helps a business to decrease the adverse impact of a difficult year. 
Specifically, this legislation increases the general net operating 
loss, NOL, carryback period from 2 years to 5 years in the case of an 
NOL for any taxable year ending during 2006, 2007, or 2008.
  I am pleased with the quick passage of H.R. 5140, the Recovery 
Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008. It 
provides tax rebates for individuals, capital investment incentives for 
businesses, and important modifications to our housing laws that will 
enable more homeowners to refinance their unmanageable mortgages. 
However, it is my belief that several important items were left behind 
that deserved to be included. The bill I am introducing today is 
identical to Section 113 of a modified Senate Finance Committee 
Economic Stimulus package, Senate Amendment No. 3983 to H.R. 5140. On 
February 6, 2008, the Senate rejected this broader package on a 
procedural vote, leaving it just one vote short of the 60 that were 
required. I am still hopeful that Congress will revisit some of these 
important

[[Page 2303]]

issues in 2008, either as stand-alone legislation or as part of another 
stimulus package if it is determined to be appropriate.
  One particular industry that would benefit from passage of this 
legislation is the home building industry, which is currently 
struggling due to a huge inventory of new homes under construction with 
few buyers. Under present law, a business loss can only be deducted 
from taxes paid from the previous 2 years. If the loss cannot be 
carried back, it must be used in the future. Many home builders are now 
reporting financial losses when a few years ago they were generating 
jobs, providing local development, and paying taxes. Expanding the NOL 
carry-back provision to 5 years would enable builders and other 
businesses to receive an immediate rebate on taxes paid in previous 
years and provide a much needed infusion of capital to their 
businesses. The inability to do so will result in the need to either 
increase high-cost borrowing or further liquidate land and homes, which 
would only compound the existing inventory problem.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that passage of this 
provision as part of the Senate Finance Committee Stimulus package 
would have cost $15 billion in 2008 and $5.1 billion over 10 years.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will 
help numerous industries that are currently struggling to survive in a 
harsh economic downturn.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 2651. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to make technical 
corrections to the renewable fuel standard; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works. 
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Technical 
Corrections to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard. This bill 
is a measured response to the overly aggressive biofuels increase 
mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in 
December. The Energy bill's mandates allow no room for error in a fuels 
industry already constrained by tight supplies, full capacity, 
environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions. This 
technical corrections bill is not an effort to substantively overhaul 
the RFS program but rather is an attempt to smooth its unintended 
consequences. Recognizing the delicate political balance surrounding 
RFS, these simple fixes are intended to provide flexibility for the 
fuels industry in meeting these mandates. As ranking member on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee I did not support the 2007 
Energy bill. The enactment of these technical corrections would not 
change my overall opposition to the current flaws enacted to the RFS 
program, but my bill does make this new RFS less onerous.
  The first correction to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard 
allows a carryover of ethanol credits. This improvement does nothing to 
change the currently mandated numbers. Rather, it provides flexibility 
to an industry facing many uncertainties. In 2007, the industry used 
approximately 2 billion gallons of ethanol over and above the necessary 
levels prescribed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT. However, 
EPACT language and EPA rulemaking do not allow for 2-year consecutive 
``carryover'' of credits. This means that although the industry has 
exceeded the 2007 requirements, they would be unable to apply these 
credits after 12 months. My bill would accommodate the uncertain levels 
of production from year to year. Considering the myriad variables 
involved in the ethanol production process including crop yields, land 
use, and feed stock prices, it only makes sense to allow more 
flexibility.
  Another fix extends the small refinery exemption by 2 years. This 
language also does nothing to change mandated levels. A small refinery 
produces less than 75,000 barrels average daily aggregate and EPACT 
exempts these facilities from the renewable fuels numbers until 2011. 
These refineries are dealing with drastically smaller economies of 
scale in production. In order to protect these refineries from 
potential economic hardship and subsequent job loss, this exemption 
should be extended from the year 2011 to 2013. 
  I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and 
quickly pass the bill I am introducing today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham, and 
        Mr. Alexander):
  S. 2652. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make a grant 
to the National World War II Museum Foundation for facilities and 
programs of America's National World War II Museum; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be 
known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The 
ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a 
testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, 
and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented 
mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on 
two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes 
to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the 
many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops 
abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the 
end of this Great War.
  I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War 
II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made. 
Today, along with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce 
America's National World War II Museum Expansion Act.
  On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of 
Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA, 
opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that 
exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American 
experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home. 
The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the 
Merchant Marine.
  The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen 
Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was 
the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D. 
Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower 
and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, 
credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in 
New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed 
and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins 
Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of 
World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men 
from the ship to the shore.
  The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates 
diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs, 
letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war 
and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving, 
maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and 
history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress 
designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's 
National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board 
has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its 
size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of 
the war, including the war on the home front.
  This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the 
expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. 
Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for 
the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The 
U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main 
theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits, 
the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring 
all of

[[Page 2304]]

the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as President, 
or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives 
between the years of 1941 and 1945.
  A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240 
million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the 
State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the 
expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match 
dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by 
Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million, 
and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately.
  A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman 
Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members 
of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing, 
I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, 
Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping 
to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give 
special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator 
Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen.
  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. 2652

       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 ``America's National World War 
     II Museum Expansion Act''.

     SEC. 2. GRANT TO NATIONAL WORLD WAR II MUSEUM FOUNDATION FOR 
                   AMERICA'S NATIONAL WORLD WAR II MUSEUM.

       (a) Grant.--The Secretary of Defense may make a grant in 
     the amount of $50,000,000 to the National World War II Museum 
     Foundation for use in accordance with subsection (b) for the 
     museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, designated as America's 
     National World War II Museum by section 8134 of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 
     108-87; 117 Stat. 1103) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Museum'').
       (b) Use of Funds.--The grant under subsection (a) shall be 
     used for the following:
       (1) The planning, design, and construction of a new 
     facility for the Museum, to be known as the United States 
     Freedom Pavilion, and its exhibitions, and the planning, 
     design, and construction of a new canopy over the courtyard 
     of the Museum, to be known as the Canopy of Peace.
       (2) The public display of artifacts, photographs, letters, 
     documents, and personal histories dating from 1939 to 1945, 
     including exhibits portraying American sacrifices both on the 
     battlefield and on the home front and the industrial 
     mobilization of the American home front.
       (3) Educational outreach programs for teachers and 
     students.
       (4) Traveling exhibitions on the history and lessons of 
     World War II for United States military facilities.
       (5) Educational programs to foster the expansion of 
     European and Pacific exhibits at the Museum to be included in 
     the Center for the Study of the American Spirit.
       (6) Projects that enable the Museum to function as a 
     liaison between museums, scholars, and members of the general 
     public in the United States and around the world.
       (7) A readily accessible repository of information and 
     materials reflecting the historical, social, and cultural 
     effects of World War II.
       (8) The preservation, interpretation, and public exhibition 
     of memorabilia, models, artifacts of significance (and 
     replicas), and oral histories from the combat experience of 
     members of the United States Armed Forces.
       (9) Other appropriate activities relating to the management 
     and operation of the United States Freedom Pavilion, 
     including the sale of concessions, appropriate mementos, and 
     other materials, the proceeds of which would help support the 
     overall operation of the Museum and the United States Freedom 
     Pavilion.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 60 months after receiving a 
     grant under this section, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report documenting how the Museum used the grants 
     funds and evaluating the success of the projects and 
     activities funded by the grant.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2653. A bill to further United States security by restoring and 
enhancing the competitiveness of the United States for international 
students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors and by 
facilitating business travel to the United States; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, I am introducing 
legislation to restore and enhance our Nation's competitiveness for 
international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors, 
and better facilitate legitimate business travel to the U.S.
  In the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, it was necessary to 
take the steps we did to improve and enhance our Nation's security. But 
in the more than 6 years since 9/11, these well-intentioned changes 
have had unintended consequences, stifling legitimate academic and 
scientific exchange and international business travel, and tarnishing 
our Nation's image around the world.
  Three years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a similar bill 
designed to reverse the decline in the number of foreign students 
studying at American colleges and universities. At that time, 
international applications to U.S. graduate schools and to English as a 
Second Language, ESL, programs were plummeting, and visa delays were 
numbering in the thousands. Visa delays were also negatively impacting 
the scientific and business communities, resulting in billions of 
dollars of losses for the U.S. economy, as scientific research, 
conferences, and business meetings had to be canceled and shifted to 
overseas locations.
  Over the past 3 years, there have been improvements with visa 
issuance, and it is the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, 
particularly Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, who deserves much of the 
credit. I am pleased with their advancements to enhance consular staff; 
adopt newer, more efficient technology; offer international students, 
scholars, and exchange visitors preferential consideration when 
scheduling in-person interview appointments; and extend security 
clearance validity. The Department also has established a business visa 
center to field inquiries from U.S. businesses and their worldwide 
counterparts, although the center cannot expedite in-person interview 
appointments or the processing of visa applications.
  This is not to say that visa delays have disappeared entirely. Delays 
do continue to occur, albeit not at the huge volume they once were. 
Because of this, there is a lot of lingering uncertainty about the 
process which generates a great deal of concern for international 
students, scholars, exchange visitors, and business travelers, and 
reinforces a perception that America is not a welcoming place for 
international visitors.
  Indeed, serious concerns remain regarding the U.S. position in the 
competition for international talent, particularly among higher 
education, the scientific community, and the private sector. Our 
competitiveness problem is not just a visa problem--we cannot solve it 
simply by fixing the visa problems that were created after 9/11.
  The U.S. now faces strong competition for international students, 
scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors. The United Kingdom, 
Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union all have coordinated, 
government-led strategic plans in place for attracting international 
students and scholars to their colleges and universities. Even our 
neighbor to the north, Canada, plans to announce a strategic plan this 
year. Meanwhile, traditional sending countries such as China and India 
are expanding their own higher education offerings, both to retain more 
of their own students and to attract international students. In the 
face of this competition, the U.S. still struggles along with piecemeal 
efforts, with each positive action seemingly cancelled out by a 
negative action and persistent negative perceptions. The results are 
worrisome.
  While international student enrollment in the U.S. declined in both 
the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years,

[[Page 2305]]

and remained stagnant in 2005-2006, over the same period, enrollment in 
the United Kingdom jumped more than 80,000, in Australia and France 
more than 50,000, and in Germany and Japan more than 20,000. In 2006, 
then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a goal of attracting an 
additional 100,000 international students to Great Britain in the next 
5 years.
  Although we have started to see the enrollment numbers tick upwards 
slightly just this past year--in Minnesota, 9,048 international 
students were studying at colleges and universities last academic year, 
contributing $186.4 million to the state's economy--it is still below 
the peak level of 9,143 achieved in 2003-2004, so there is still ground 
to make up for what was lost over the past 3 years to ensure we regain 
our place as the most desired destination for study and for research. 
Even if we return to pre-9/11 numbers, we may find we have lost market 
share to competing nations.
  Why should this matter to the U.S.? Recent public opinion polls taken 
around the world show that the U.S. has fallen out of favor. But these 
same polls also show that foreigners who have personally visited the 
U.S. have a significantly more favorable opinion than those who have 
never visited.
  International students and scholars benefit greatly from their 
experiences in the U.S., not only from their studies and research, but 
also from living in daily American life. They carry these experiences 
home, often becoming ambassadors of goodwill and understanding. Many go 
on to achieve leadership positions in their home countries in 
government, business, or education. These exchanges also benefit 
American students, researchers and business colleagues, who similarly 
have the opportunity to learn about another culture in this globalized 
world.
  Two expert commissions recently issued recommendations citing 
international educational exchange as a critical form of public 
diplomacy outreach. Last November, the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies' Commission on Smart Power cited international 
educational exchange as a key element for improving America's declining 
standing and influence in the world. Just last month, the Secure 
Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee 
tasked by the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide 
recommendations on the Departments' missions to protect not only 
America's security but also our economic livelihood, ideals, image, and 
strategic relationships with the world, cited the need for a proactive 
national strategy to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal 
to attract international students and scholars to the U.S.
  International students and scholars are not only important for public 
diplomacy, they also are essential for our Nation's global 
competitiveness. They make significant contributions to our economic 
growth and innovation. According to recent National Science Board data, 
nearly half of all graduate enrollments at U.S. colleges and 
universities in the science and engineering fields are international 
students. And these students often go on to positively impact future 
research and technology output in this country. I strongly support 
efforts to build up America's own supply of science and technology 
talent, but we also must continue to actively attract international 
talent to our shores if we are to retain our innovative edge.
  It is a reality of our time that, at the high-skill level, the 
temporary immigration system has become a conveyor belt of talent into 
the permanent immigration system. Most foreign students do want to go 
home after graduation, but some want to stay and use the knowledge they 
have acquired at our universities. For example, Ms. Indra Nooyi, the 
current CEO of PepsiCo, the world's fourth largest food and beverage 
company, is herself a former international student who received her 
master's degree from Yale University's School of Management.
  So it is for all these important reasons that Senator Bingaman and I 
once again introduce legislation on this important issue: The American 
Competitiveness Through International Openness Now, ACTION, Act of 
2008.
  This year's bill once again calls for the establishment of a 
strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in 
recruiting international students, scholars and exchange visitors. The 
U.S. can no longer sit back and rest on its laurels when engaging in 
this global competition, especially when all of our competitors clearly 
have stepped up their game.
  Our biggest problem is our inability to marshal the efforts of all 
the relevant agencies into one coherent effort. Too often, these 
agencies work in an uncoordinated manner, or worse, at cross purposes. 
The PR blunder cases, where one arm of our government sets up exchange 
programs to attract people and another arm of the government detains 
them at the border, is only the tip of the iceberg. Our legislation 
would create a White House-chaired International Education Coordinating 
Council to guide the work of the myriad agencies that affect our 
competitiveness for international students and exchange visitors.
  One of the most important provisions in the legislation would remove 
the nonimmigrant intent requirement for international students, the so-
called 214(b) rule. This outdated requirement that all applicants for 
student visas must intend to return home after their studies makes no 
sense, especially when talent-starved high-tech industries actively 
court international students upon graduation. As I stated earlier, our 
ability to attract international talent is essential to sustaining our 
competitive edge in the world. Retaining such a requirement is simply 
out of step in this day and age, especially when most of our 
competitors are going out of their way to enact policies to make it 
easier for international students to stay after graduation.
  The bill calls for further improvement in the timeliness and 
efficiency of the visa issuance process for those in the sciences. It 
directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to reduce the length 
of time to issue visas to scientists to a maximum of 30 days, and to 
provide a special review process for those cases that are delayed more 
than 45 days. It also directs the Secretary of State to review and 
update the Technology Alert List on a regular basis, and to consult 
with academia and the private sector as part of this review, to ensure 
the list reflects the current state of technology.
  It also calls for expediting visa reviews for so-called ``Trusted 
Travelers'': easily identifiable, low-risk frequent travelers who have 
a history of past visa approvals, haven't violated their immigration 
status, and have provided their biometric data, plus any additional 
information required, to the consulate. This would both ease travel for 
these individuals and permit consular resources to be focused on more 
important cases. There is also a provision to also allow expedited visa 
reviews for international students, scholars and exchange visitors who 
leave the United States temporarily to visit their families or attend 
conferences and require a new visa to return to the same program. 
Today, these people can be stranded abroad for months without being 
able to return to their programs.
  The legislation calls for the reinstatement of domestic or stateside 
visa renewals for those here on employment-based non-immigrant visas. 
This practice was discontinued in 2004, because U.S. consulates abroad 
were better equipped to collect the required biometric data from the 
renewal applicant. Given today's available technology, we should seek 
to reinstate this practice. This would help to alleviate the volume of 
renewal applicants at our overseas consulates, as well as help renewal 
applicants who often opt to forgo travel overseas due to the 
uncertainty of timely and efficient processing of their renewal 
applications.
  Finally, there has been much public debate about driver's licenses 
and Real ID. In our well-intentioned efforts to ensure that only 
persons in the U.S. legally are able to acquire driver's licenses, we 
have unintentionally hamstrung the ability of legal nonimmigrants to 
have licenses. Real ID's unrealistic documentation and renewal

[[Page 2306]]

requirements for international students and scholars send yet another 
negative signal about America's openness to them, and frankly ignore 
technical advances which could provide both better assurances about a 
person's legal status and licenses of a longer validity. Our bill will 
correct this problem in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, the 
integrity of driver's licenses.
  For all of these reasons, our legislation is endorsed by NAFSA: 
Association of International Educators, the world's largest 
professional association advocating for international education and 
exchange programs, by the National Foreign Trade Council, the Nation's 
premier business organization dedicated to advancing global commerce, 
and by USA Engage, a leading broad-based coalition of trade 
associations promoting global economic engagement.
  The American way of life owes its success and vitality to its 
historic ability to harness the best in knowledge and ideas, not only 
those that are homegrown, but also those that come from outside our 
borders. The longer we wait to take action, the more we risk missing 
out on future U.S. academic, business, and research success.
  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. 2653

       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 ``American Competitiveness 
     Through International Openness Now Act of 2008'' or as the 
     ``ACTION Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Although the United States is engaged in a global 
     competition for international students and scholars, the 
     United States lacks a comprehensive strategy for conducting 
     and succeeding in this competition.
       (2) In January 2008, the Secure Borders and Open Doors 
     Advisory Committee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council 
     issued a report that specifically cites international 
     education as a key component of public diplomacy, stating: 
     ``America is losing competitiveness for international 
     students for one primary reason . . . because our competitors 
     have--and America lacks--a proactive national strategy that 
     enables us to mobilize all the tools and assets at our 
     disposal, and that enables the federal bureaucracy to work 
     together in a coherent fashion, to attract international 
     students.''
       (3) Attracting the world's most talented students and 
     scholars to campuses and research institutes in the United 
     States will contribute significantly to the leadership, 
     competitiveness, and security of this Nation.
       (4) The international student market has been transformed 
     in the 21st century. Traditional competitor countries have 
     adopted and implemented strategies for capturing a greater 
     share of the market. New competitors, primarily the European 
     Higher Education Area, have entered the market. Traditional 
     sending countries, such as China and India, are expanding 
     their indigenous higher education capacity, both to retain 
     their own students and to attract international students. All 
     of these changes are giving international students many more 
     options for pursuing higher education outside their home 
     countries.
       (5) The number of international students enrolled in United 
     States higher education institutions declined in the academic 
     years 2003-04 and 2004-05, and remained constant in academic 
     year 2005-06. In academic year 2006-07, international student 
     enrollments increased 3 percent, yet remained below the peak 
     level, achieved in the 2002-03 academic year.
       (6) From 2003 to 2006, international student enrollments 
     increased--
       (A) by more than 80,000 in the United Kingdom;
       (B) by more than 50,000 in Australia and France; and
       (C) by more than 20,000 in Germany and Japan.
       (7) Anecdotal evidence indicates that international 
     students, scholars, and scientists continue to find the 
     process of gaining entry to the United States to be demeaning 
     and unnecessarily cumbersome.
       (8) While intensive English programs in the United States 
     are a gateway to degree programs, international student 
     enrollments in such programs have declined by almost 50 
     percent since 2000, and many schools offering such programs 
     have closed. This is due primarily to the difficulty of 
     obtaining a United States visa for the purpose of studying 
     English.
       (9) At a time when talent is both scarce and mobile and 
     attracting talent is essential to the leadership, 
     competitiveness, and security of the United States, it is as 
     important for our Nation's visa system to be a gateway for 
     international talent as it is for it to be a barrier to 
     international criminals. Although the Department of State has 
     made significant progress in improving the United States visa 
     system, the system still does not effectively serve this dual 
     purpose.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of 
     the United States--
       (1) to make international educational exchange a priority 
     in order to promote United States leadership, 
     competitiveness, and security;
       (2) to restore United States competitiveness for 
     international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange 
     visitors;
       (3) to ensure that all agencies of the United States 
     Government work together to create a welcoming environment 
     for legitimate international students, scholars, scientists, 
     and exchange visitors, without sacrificing safety;
       (4) to pursue a visa policy that keeps the United States 
     safe, prosperous, and free, by--
       (A) addressing legitimate security concerns; and
       (B) keeping the United States a welcoming Nation; and
       (5) to ensure that United States consulates have adequate 
     resources to perform their required duties.

     SEC. 4. ENHANCING UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS FOR 
                   INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS, 
                   AND EXCHANGE VISITORS.

       (a) Strategic Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 
     a strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the 
     United States for international students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors.
       (2) Content.--The strategic plan submitted under this 
     subsection shall include--
       (A) a clear directive to the Department of State, the 
     Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, 
     the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and 
     other Federal departments that impact--
       (i) the propensity of international students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors to visit the United States;
       (ii) the ability of such individuals to gain entry into the 
     United States; and
       (iii) the ability of such individuals to obtain a driver's 
     license, Social Security card, and other documents essential 
     to daily life in the United States;
       (B) a marketing plan, including continued improvements in 
     the use of the Internet and other media resources, to promote 
     and facilitate study in the United States by international 
     students;
       (C) a clear division of labor among the departments 
     referred to in subparagraph (A);
       (D) a plan to enhance the role of the educational advising 
     centers of the Department of State that are located in 
     foreign countries to promote study in the United States and 
     to prescreen visa applicants;
       (E) a clarification of the lines of authority and 
     responsibility for international students in the Department 
     of Commerce;
       (F) a clear role for the Department of Education in 
     increasing the competitiveness of the United States for 
     international students; and
       (G) a clear delineation of the lines of authority and 
     streamlined procedures within the Department of Homeland 
     Security related to international students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors.
       (b) International Education Coordination Council.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Executive 
     Office of the President a council to be known as the 
     International Education Coordination Council (referred to in 
     this subsection as the ``Council'').
       (2) Purpose.--The Council shall coordinate the activities 
     of the Federal Government in order to further the purposes of 
     this Act.
       (3) Chair.--The President shall designate an official of 
     the Executive Office of the President to preside over the 
     Council.
       (4) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of the 
     following positions, or their designees:
       (A) The Secretary of State.
       (B) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (C) The Secretary of Education.
       (D) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (E) The Secretary of Energy.
       (F) The Secretary of Labor.
       (G) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (H) The Commissioner of Social Security.
       (I) The head of any other agency designated by the 
     President.
       (c) Elimination of Nonimmigrant Intent Criterion for 
     Students.--
       (1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``having a residence in a foreign country 
     which he has no intention of abandoning,'' and inserting 
     ``having the intention, capability, and sufficient financial

[[Page 2307]]

     resources to complete a course of study in the United 
     States,''; and
       (B) by striking ``and solely''.
       (2) Presumption of status.--Section 214(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by striking 
     ``subparagraph (L) or'' and inserting ``subparagraph (F), 
     (L), or''.
       (d) Countering Visa Fraud.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (1) require United States consular offices, with particular 
     emphasis on consular offices in countries that send large 
     numbers of international students and exchange visitors to 
     the United States, to submit to the Secretary plans for 
     countering visa fraud that respond to the particular fraud-
     related problems in the countries where such offices are 
     located; and
       (2) not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, 
     report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives on the measures taken to counter visa fraud 
     under the plans submitted under paragraph (1).
       (e) Improving the Security Clearance Process for 
     Scientists.--
       (1) Duration of security clearances.--The Secretary shall 
     extend the duration of security clearances for scientists 
     admitted under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)) until sooner of--
       (A) the expiration of the program for which the scientist 
     was admitted; or
       (B) the date that is 5 years after the beginning of such 
     extension.
       (2) Portability of security clearances.--
       (A) Validity across nonimmigrant classifications.--Except 
     as provided under subparagraph (B), a security clearance 
     issued with respect to an individual classified within a 
     nonimmigrant classification shall remain valid with respect 
     to a change of the individual to another nonimmigrant 
     classification if the security clearance approved in 
     connection with the first classification is in substantially 
     the same field as the field involved in the subsequent 
     classification.
       (B) National interest waiver.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
     apply with respect to an applicant for a security clearance 
     if the Secretary determines that the application of such 
     subparagraph with respect to such applicant is not in the 
     national security interests of the United States.
       (3) Visa processing time.--The Secretary shall issue 
     appropriate guidance to--
       (A) reduce the length of time required to issue visas to 
     scientists to a maximum of 30 days; and
       (B) provide for a special review process to resolve 
     instances in which the length of time required to issue visas 
     to scientists exceeds 45 days.
       (4) Review of technology alert list.--
       (A) Interagency process.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     interagency group to review the technology alert list not 
     less frequently than once every 2 years.
       (B) Chair.--The interagency review group established 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be chaired by an 
     appropriate official of the Department of State.
       (C) Consultation.--As part of its assessment of the current 
     state of technology, the interagency review group shall 
     consult with academic experts and with companies that 
     manufacture and distribute the items on the technology alert 
     list.
       (D) Implementation.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) promptly revise the technology alert list in accordance 
     with the recommendations of the group; and
       (ii) promptly notify consular officials of the Department 
     of State of the revisions.
       (5) Annual report.--
       (A) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit an annual 
     report on the implementation of this subsection to--
       (i) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate;
       (ii) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (iii) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
       (iv) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (v) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (vi) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     shall include such information as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, including--
       (i) progress made to reduce the length of time required to 
     process visas to scientists, including the average processing 
     time to complete security clearances for visa applicants in 
     each nonimmigrant visa classification under section 
     101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
       (ii) any revisions made to the technology alert list under 
     paragraph (4);
       (iii) the number of individuals in each nonimmigrant visa 
     classification who have--

       (I) received a security clearance in the preceding year;
       (II) been approved for a visa after receiving such 
     clearance; or
       (III) been denied such clearance; and

       (iv) the distribution of such individuals by country of 
     nationality.
       (6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Scientists.--The term ``scientists'' means individuals 
     subject to clearance under section 212(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(II)).
       (B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of State.
       (C) Technology alert list.--The term ``technology alert 
     list'' means the list of goods, technology, and sensitive 
     information that is maintained by the Department of State.
       (f) Short-Term Study on Tourist Visa.--Section 
     101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B)) is amended by inserting ``for a period 
     longer than 90 days'' after ``study''.
       (g) Drivers' Licenses for International Students and 
     Exchange Visitors.--Section 202(c)(2)(C) of the Real ID Act 
     of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(v) Provisions for nonimmigrants monitored under the 
     student and exchange visitor information system.--With 
     respect to a nonimmigrant subject to the monitoring system 
     required under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372)--

       ``(I) notwithstanding clause (ii), a temporary driver's 
     license or temporary identification card issued to such 
     nonimmigrant pursuant to this subparagraph shall be valid for 
     the shorter of--

       ``(aa) the period of time of the nonimmigrant's authorized 
     stay in the United States; or
       ``(bb) the standard issuance period for drivers' licenses 
     provided by the State; and

       ``(II) valid status under that monitoring system shall be 
     deemed to be valid documentary evidence that the nonimmigrant 
     maintains status for purposes of clause (iv).''.

       (h) Change of Status for Certain F-visa Holders Seeking 
     Adjustment of Status.--An individual who has been in valid 
     status under section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) shall be considered 
     to have remained in such status until the beginning of a 
     fiscal year if--
       (1) a petition under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such 
     Act has been filed on behalf of such individual and has been 
     approved for such fiscal year;
       (2) the cap with respect to such petitions provided in 
     paragraph (1)(A) or (5)(C) of section 214(g) of such Act was 
     reached before such fiscal year; and
       (3) such individual's valid status under section 
     101(a)(15)(F) of such Act would otherwise terminate not more 
     than 6 months before such fiscal year.
       (i) Social Security Enumeration at Ports of Entry.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that section 
     205(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)) requires the Commissioner of Social 
     Security to assign Social Security numbers, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, to aliens at the time of their lawful 
     admission to the United States--
       (A) for permanent residence; or
       (B) under any other status which permits such aliens to 
     engage in employment in the United States.
       (2) Memorandum of understanding.--Pursuant to such section, 
     not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security, the Secretary 
     of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reach 
     agreement on a memorandum of understanding to expand the 
     enumeration-at-entry program to include all eligible 
     individuals seeking admission to the United States under 
     section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)).
       (3) Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the expanded enumeration-at-
     entry program described in paragraph (2) shall become 
     effective at all United States ports of entry.

     SEC. 5. FACILITATING BUSINESS AND ACADEMIC TRAVEL.

       (a) Expedited Visa Reviews for Trusted Travelers.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
     establish a trusted traveler program for international 
     students, researchers, scholars, and individuals engaged in 
     business, which shall operate in accordance with such 
     guidance and procedures as the Secretary may determine.
       (2) Trusted traveler described.--The trusted traveler 
     program shall provide for expedited visa review for--
       (A) frequent low-risk visitors to the United States, who--
       (i) have a history of visa approvals;
       (ii) have not violated their immigration status;
       (iii) have provided biometric data; and
       (iv) have agreed to provide the consulate with such 
     information as the Secretary may require; and
       (B) aliens admitted under subparagraph (F) or (J) of 
     section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), who--
       (i) are pursuing a program in the United States;
       (ii) have not violated their immigration status;
       (iii) have left the United States temporarily; and

[[Page 2308]]

       (iv) require a new visa to return to the same program.
       (3) Authority to waive personal appearance.--
     Notwithstanding section 222(h) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202(h)), the Secretary may waive 
     the requirement for an in-person interview by a consular 
     officer with respect to trusted travelers described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (b) Enhancing Consular Resources and Performance.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (A) issue instructions providing for--
       (i) enhanced staffing of United States consulates with high 
     demand for visas and long visa-processing backlogs; and
       (ii) enhanced training, in partnership with institutions of 
     higher education, leaders in educational exchange, and the 
     business community, for consular officers with respect to 
     processing visas for international students and scholars and 
     individuals traveling for business;
       (B) issue strong operational guidance to all United States 
     consular posts to eliminate inconsistencies in visa 
     processing; and
       (C) through regular reviews, hold such posts accountable 
     for removing such inconsistencies.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 
     on the implementation of this subsection.
       (c) Restoration of Revalidation Procedures for Employment-
     Based Visas.--
       (1) In general.--Section 222 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) The Secretary of State shall issue regulations to 
     permit an alien granted a nonimmigrant visa under 
     subparagraph (E), (H), (I), (L), (O), or (P) of section 
     101(a)(15) to apply for a renewal of such visa within the 
     United States if--
       ``(1) such visa is valid or did not expire more than 12 
     months before the date of such application;
       ``(2) the alien is seeking a nonimmigrant visa under the 
     same subparagraph under which the alien had previously 
     received a visa; and
       ``(3) the alien has complied with the immigration laws of 
     the United States.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 222(h) of such Act is 
     amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (1), by 
     striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided under subsection (i), and notwithstanding''.
       (d) Comprehensive Human Capital Workforce Plan.--The 
     Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall jointly--
       (1) develop a plan for the appropriate selection, training, 
     and supervision of Federal Government officials whose contact 
     with foreign citizens impacts the international image of the 
     United States, including consular and customs and border 
     protection officials; and
       (2) submit an annual report on the implementation of the 
     plan described in paragraph (1) to--
       (A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (C) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.

                          ____________________