Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

 Not logged in
Log in | Help
 

Senate Record 4- January 23, 2007

From dKosopedia

Category: 110th Congress

Congressional Record
Senate - January 23, 2007 - week 4
110th - United States Congress
Image:US-SenateRecord.jpg
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Previous earlier in the sesson
Next Wednesday - January 24, 2007


These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on January 23, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.

Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.


To view earlier in the session for the day, click here.

Contents

On the Floor - Afternoon Session (cont.) -Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Messages from the House

Report on the State of the Union delivered to a Joint Session of Congress on January 23, 2007

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was ordered to lie on the table:

Report on the State of the Union delivered to a Joint Session of Congress on January 23, 2007

Measures Referred

The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

Executive and other Communications

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

Introduction of Bills and Joint Resolutions

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. SMITH):

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. DOMENICI):

By Mr. COLEMAN:

By Mr. COLEMAN:

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Mr. DORGAN):

By Mr. DOMENICI:

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BYRD, and Mr. SANDERS):

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. DODD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. REED, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SMITH, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. REID):

By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BIDEN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. SALAZAR):

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. CORNYN):

Submission of Concurrent and Senate resolutions

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. LEVIN):

Additional Cosponsors

Statments on Introduced Bills and joint Resolutions

S. 360 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand expenses which qualify for the Hope Scholarship Credit and to make the Hope Scholarship Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit refundable; to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Smith to introduce the Greater Access To Education, or GATE Act, of 2007. This legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to make college more affordable, and thus provide greater access to postsecondary education for lower income students and working families. Simply put, this bill would expand expenses which qualify for the Hope Scholarship Credit, prevent aid for needy students from reducing the credit, and make the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits refundable.

The cost of attending college in the U.S. has grown by 44 percent since 2000, far outpacing the median growth in income. We've seen a 35 percent jump in inflation-adjusted average tuition and fees for in-state students at public colleges and universities since 2001-02. The cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than just last year, averaging $12,796 including room and board.

Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise Pell Grant Scholarships for needy students. This critical student aid has been frozen at just over $4000 for four years. Ten years ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public four-year college. Last year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs.

At the same time, we're seeing increasing competition among colleges and universities for the highest scoring students. And these students command higher tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit scholarships. As a result, there's a smaller proportion of the financial aid budget available for low income students at colleges with rising tuitions.

A recent report by Education Trust found that many of the flagship and research-extensive public universities have reallocated financial aid resources away from the low income students who need help to go to college--mostly to compete for high income students who would enroll in college regardless of the amount of aid they receive. Between 1995 and 2003, flagship and other research-extensive public universities actually decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less while they increased aid to students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In 2003, these institutions spent a combined $257 million to subsidize the tuition of students from families with annual incomes over $100,000--a staggering increase from the $50 million they spent in 1995.

In addition, many colleges and universities are now using "enrollment and revenue management" firms to help manage admissions and financial aid. I am concerned that too many schools are trying to leverage their financial aid to entice wealthier and high scoring students to attend their schools, at the expense of aid to lower income students. In essence, they're directing financial aid dollars to students who will increase a school's revenues and rankings.

As a result, low income students are disproportionately bearing the brunt of increased college tuition and fees. In turn, more and more students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. And, we've seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this country. In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 in debt.

And, last year, Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student aid programs, pushing college further out of reach for American families. It is the largest single cut the Federal Government has made to student aid programs, and it is expected to increase the debt burden of students and their families as many borrowers of student loans will face higher interest payments.

Congress, simply, has moved in the wrong direction, and failed to help make college more affordable for students from low income and working families.

Full time students receive about $3,100 per year in aid in the form of grants and tax benefits at 4-year public institutions. In 2003-04, however, only 56 percent of 4-year public institution students from families with incomes below $30,000 received sufficient grant aid and tax benefits to cover tuition and fees.

Even worse, we know that each year there are hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend a 4-year college but do not do so because of financial barriers.

We must reverse this course and make college more affordable for students from low-income and working families.

The first priority for this Congress should be to increase student aid for needy students. We must increase the amount of Pell grants to at least $5,100.

The next thing we should do is make sure that the existing education tax credits work effectively for the families that need them most. The Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits have helped millions of Americans finance their college education. For this tax year, the credits allow eligible tax filers to reduce their tax liability by receiving a credit of up to $1,650 for the Hope program or up to $2,000 for the Lifetime Learning credit for tuition and course-related fees paid for a single student.

Unfortunately, research shows that these tax credits are not working as effectively as they could be. They do not support students who are currently enrolled in college to any significant degree, and they do not induce greater numbers of students, including working adults who need to upgrade their education and skills, to earn a postsecondary degree.

Many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering "tuition and related expenses" Students who attend colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those attending community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit.

For college students attending institutions with relatively high tuition rates, the maximum credit will be available to cover the higher tuition. This is not the case, however, for many students, particularly the vast majority of community college students, as well as hundreds of thousands of students attending public four-year colleges, who attend college where the tuition is lower. These students are not able to access the full credit because tuition at these institutions is lower than the maximum credit, and the scope of the credit is limited to tuition and related expenses. College students must pay for much more than just tuition, however, including room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees.

Further, a student's eligibility for the Hope tax credit is actually reduced by any grants the student receives--Federal, State, or private. The impact of this limitation is felt particularly by the by the low income students that receive Pell Grants or other Federal or State assistance. Often, the assistance received fully offsets the amount of the credit.

This legislation is simple and straightforward, and is crafted to address these shortcomings. First, in addition to tuition, it allows the Hope credit to cover room and board, required fees, books, supplies, and equipment. It is important to note that the IRS Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living expenses, in programs such as Section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre-paid tuition plans.

As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated with going to college. Room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges. The cost for books and supplies alone can be as high as $1000 per year.

In addition, the legislation changes the IRS Code so that any Federal Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to needier students, especially those attending four-year public colleges.

But these fixes only get to a part of the problem. Because the education tax credits are not refundable, a family of four must earn above $30,000 to get the maximum credit. A student or working family must have a positive tax liability to receive the credit. Nearly half of all families with college students do not get the full credit because their income is too low.

In fact, only 36 percent of filers claiming the credits at all had incomes under $30,000; less than 10 percent of filers claiming the credits had incomes under $15,000. By contrast, 36 percent of filers claiming the credits earned $50,000 or more.

Making the credits refundable would ensure that families in lower tax brackets are eligible for the maximum benefits and would thus make college more affordable to those students and families who need the most assistance.

I believe we all can agree that maintaining a skilled and educated workforce should rank as one of our highest priorities. The National Academy of Sciences projected that while the U.S. economy is doing well today, current trends indicate that the U.S. may not fare as well in the future, particularly in the areas of science and technology, where innovation is spurred and high-wage jobs follow.

This Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that every capable student who wants to go to college should be able to, which will in turn ensure that we have workers to fill the high-quality, high-wage jobs we are working so hard to create. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the RECORD.

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

See S. 360 for text as entered.

S. 361 - A bill to designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the "Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse"; to the Committee on environment and Public Works.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM as the "Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse." Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992.

Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. He was the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico.

Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name.

The Senate passed a bill in the 108th Congress to name the same courthouse for Judge Campos by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to take up the measure and it failed to be signed into law. I rise again to ask the Senate to pass the bill and honor the work and dedication of Judge Santiago Campos.

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:

See S. 361 for text as entered.

S. 364 - A bill to strengthen United States trade laws and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers.

For generations, American manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and a ladder to the middle class. Unfortunately, over the last several years, the manufacturing sector of our economy has suffered disproportionately and millions of good jobs have been lost. In my home State of West Virginia, well over 10,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. Workers and manufacturers in all of our States have found it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global markets, when the odds are stacked against them because of unfair trading practices.

American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it's a fair fight. Our domestic and international trade laws were set up to establish a level playing field, but unfortunately some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws in order to gain an unfair advantage in trade with the United States. This has led to our record-breaking--and still growing--trade deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and have contributed to the migration of manufacturing jobs to factories overseas. This is an enormous problem that the United States must face and conquer.

A large part of the problem in recent years is that the Bush Administration has not been an aggressive enforcer of U.S. domestic trade laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The bill I introduce today, the Strengthening America's Trade Law Act of 2007, will improve our ability to correct deficiencies in four areas of U.S. trade policy: first, it will address problems in the U.S. approach to the WTO Dispute Settlement process; second, it will strengthen antidumping remedies, third, it will expand the reach of countervailing duties, and fourth, it will remove the President's discretion to disregard the recommendations of the International Trade Commission in certain circumstances.

The steel industry is perhaps the best-known example of how our trade laws can help or hurt domestic industry when it is injured by unfair foreign trade practices, but industries from timber to chinaware to candlemaking are all too familiar with this point.

This bill contains a number of provisions that would provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law. The United States would remain fully compliant with its obligations in the World Trade Organization under this legislation.

Let me briefly describe what this bill will do to level the playing field for American manufacturers.

Title I of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act bolsters the United States' position in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The dispute settlement system set up in 1994 upon the creation of the WTO was intended to establish a rules-based system of enforcing trade agreements. However, recent cases involving U.S. application of its laws regarding import surges, anti-dumping and countervailing duties have raised concerns about the fairness of the system.

To address these concerns, Title I allows the direct participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings of the U.S. business and trade associations that are directly affected by these proceedings, which would improve the prospects of zealous advocacy on behalf of U.S. interests at stake. It also creates a Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement that would analyze WTO decisions that are adverse to the United States, report to Congress on the propriety of the decisions and provide guidance for how the Congress might proceed in responding to adverse decisions.

Title I also requires Congressional approval of all measures taken by the U.S. government to comply with adverse decisions. In most cases, compliance with an adverse WTO decision calls for legislative changes, but in some cases such as the recent case involving ``zeroing on dumping determinations, the Bush Administration has determined that the United States can comply with the adverse decision through regulatory changes such as altering the methodology through which the Commerce Department calculates the dumping margin. This provision of my trade bill would prevent the Administration from side-stepping Congress in determining how to respond to an adverse decision in the WTO. Congressional oversight is an important element of our trade policy, and these provisions would help restore it.

Title II of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act tightens the rules in anti-dumping cases in favor of the petitioning domestic industry and makes it harder for dumping countries and businesses to circumvent the rules. Additionally, it applies a stricter methodology for determining the market value of goods from countries designated as "nonmarket economies" (NMEs). These countries presently include small former Soviet republics such as Turkmenistan and Georgia, and also large U.S. trading partners such as China. These NME designations are an important element of U.S. trade policy, and Title II gives Congress the ability to approve or disapprove any change in a country's NME status.

Title II also overrules the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in the Bratsk case, which inappropriately added a new requirement not presently included in our anti-dumping laws, namely that ITC anti-dumping investigations must include evaluating the role of imports that are not actually subject to the investigation. This speculative element is not part of the investigation process that Congress mandated the ITC to follow in anti-dumping cases, and my bill would remove this judicially-added requirement that was never a part of our trade remedy law.

Title III of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act expands the reach of countervailing duties (CVDs) in order to address two significant sources of unfair trade: China's artificially undervalued currency, and the disparate treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners.

Unlike anti-dumping duties, CVDs have not been applied against imports from NME countries like China, leaving a huge hole in the trade remedies available to U.S. manufacturers who are competing against subsidized imports from China. This bill explicitly makes CVDs applicable to NME countries, and it and provides a methodology for determining subsidy levels in NMEs that is similar to the methodology for determining fair market value in anti-dumping investigations regarding NME countries.

Next, Title III designates currency exchange rate manipulation as a subsidy that can be addressed by application of CVDs. It is well known that China's government pegs its currency's value to the value of a "basket" of currencies including the dollar rather than allowing the value to be determined freely in currency exchange markets. This practice keeps China's currency artificially low, boosting Chinese exports and protecting Chinese domestic industry from imports. In December, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called this practice what it is, an "effective subsidy." This provision of Title III would allow the U.S. government to apply our CVD law to this subsidy.

Title III also contains a vital provision that would lead to the possible future use of CVDs as a remedy for the differential treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. WTO rules provide that rebates on "direct" taxes such as income, employment, and real estate taxes constitute subsidies, whereas rebates on "indirect taxes" such as sales and VAT taxes are not subsidies. This puts U.S. producers at a significant disadvantage to producers in countries that use value-added tax (VAT) systems.

Over 135 U.S. trading partners use VAT taxes for a significant amount of their revenue, and when U.S. exports enter a VAT tax country, they are subject to the importing country's VAT tax, whereas U.S. imports from a VAT tax country are not subject to the producing country's VAT tax. This unfair tax treatment constitutes both a hidden import duty for U.S. exports and a hidden export subsidy for VAT tax country products entering the United States.

This provision of Title III would push the USTR to negotiate this issue to a satisfactory conclusion within the next two years. Failing such negotiations, it would designate this differential treatment a countervailable subsidy which would then be subject to CVDs.

Finally, Title IV of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act would remove Presidential discretion to ignore the recommendations of the ITC in safeguard cases regarding China, or so-called "Section 421" cases. Section 421 of the legislation that provided for China's accession to the WTO is a "safeguard" provision that provides for temporary relief from surges of imports that have caused injury to domestic industry. There are a number of recent examples of President Bush's failure to take action in cases in which the ITC has recommended "safeguard" relief most notably on December 30, 2005, when he denied the relief that the ITC had recommended for U.S. steel pipe and tube manufacturers in the face of a surge of imports from China. Title IV would ensure that such denials do not happen in the future by removing Presidential discretion in applying safeguard measures in cases involving imports from China and instead making the findings and recommendations of the ITC the final word on the matter.

The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act will provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law and a more level playing field for U.S. workers and manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global economy. I commend it to my colleagues and urge them to join me in pushing for its swift enactment. Congress has sat on the sidelines for too long as our country's finest manufacturers have been dealt blow after blow. This bill will not solve the trade deficit alone, but it is a reasonable start.

I am going to ask my leadership, in my caucus and on the Finance Committee, to work with me on this legislation, and I look forward to joining forces with my allies on the other side of the aisle to move this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the record. 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:

See S. 364 for text as entered.

S. 366 - A bill to authorize the conveyance of certain Federal land in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature.

I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great variety of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of the Southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our youth an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a non-profit institution that has spent the past six years providing hands-on science education to K-12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentations, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects and teacher workshops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA--Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.

The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. In addition, this bill was passed by the Senate in the 109th Congress without amendments by unanimous consent. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer.

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:

See S. 366 for text as entered.

S. 368 - A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the cops on the beat grant program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reed, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Reid):

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, to reauthorize the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). This program has achieved what my colleagues and I hoped for back when we were debating the 1994 Crime Bill. Prior to the final vote, in August of 1994, I stated that ``I will vote for this bill, because, as much as anything I have ever voted on in 22 years in the U.S. Senate, I truly believe that passage of this legislation will make a difference in the lives of the American people. I believe with every fiber in my being that if this bill passes, fewer people will be murdered, fewer people will be victims, fewer women will be senselessly beaten, fewer people will continue on the drug path, and fewer children will become criminals.

Fortunately, with the creation of the COPS program, we were able to form a partnership amongst Federal, State, and local law enforcement and create programs that helped drive down crime rates for eight consecutive years. In 1994 we had historically high rates of violent crimes, such as murders, forcible rapes, and aggravated assaults. We were able to reduce these to the lowest levels in a generation. We reduced the murder rate by 37.8 percent; we reduced forcible rapes by 19.1 percent; and we reduced aggravated assaults by 25.5 percent. Property crimes, including auto thefts also were reduced from historical highs to the lowest levels in decades. The COPS program has been endorsed by every major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), the National Sheriffs Association (NSA), the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officials (NOBLE), the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), the Fraternal Order of Police, and others.

Rather than support this important program, the Bush Administration and Republican leadership has been set on eliminating it. President Bush has proposed cuts each year he has been in office, and while we have fought to maintain funding for COPS, the hiring program was completely eliminated in 2005. Overall funding for State and local law enforcement programs has been slashed by billions and the COPS hiring program has been completely eliminated. Last year's budget request contained only $117 million for local law enforcement from COPS and the complete elimination of the Justice Assistance Grant.

These cuts are coming at the worst possible time. Local law enforcement is facing what I have called a perfect storm. The FBI is reprogramming its field agents from local crime to terrorism. Undoubtedly, this is necessary given the threats facing our Nation. But, this means that there will be less Federal assistance for drug cases, bank robberies, and violent crime. Local law enforcement will be required to fill the gap left by the FBI in addition to performing more and more homeland security duties.

Due to budget restraints at the local level and the unprecedented cuts in Federal assistance they will be less able to do either. Articles in the USA Today and the New York Times highlighted the fact that many cities are being forced to eliminate officers because of local budgets woes. In fact, New York City has lost over 3,000 officers in the 1ast few years. Other cities, such as Cleveland, MN, and Houston, TX, are facing similar shortages. As a result, local police chiefs are reluctantly pulling officers from the proactive policing activities that were so successful in the nineties, and they are unable to provide sufficient numbers of officers for Federal task forces. These choices are not made lightly. Police chiefs understand the value of proactive policing and the need to be involved in homeland security task forces; however, they simply don't have the manpower to do it all. Responding to emergency calls must take precedence over proactive programs and task forces, and we are beginning to pay the price. The FBI is reporting rising violent crime in cities throughout the Nation, with murder rates rising 3.4 percent in 2005. Additionally, the preliminary numbers for 2006 show that violent crime is up 3.7 percent and murder rates up 1.4 percent when compared to last year's preliminary numbers.

Although the COPS program was re-authorized as part of Department of Justice Reauthorization, this bill is critical for several reasons. First, it re-establishes our commitment to the hiring program by including a separate authorization of $600 million to hire officers to engage in community policing, intelligence gathering, and as school resource officers. We need more cops on the beat and in our schools, and this will help get us there. It also authorizes $350 million per year for technology grants, and it includes $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. Finally, it congressionally establishes the COPS office as the entity within the Department of Justice to carry out these functions in order to eliminate duplication of efforts. The bottom line is that this bill keeps faith with our State and local law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe from crime and terrorism. I would ask all of my colleagues to go ask their local police chief or sheriff and ask them if they should support this legislation, and I hope that they will because if they did it would be passed 100-0.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the RECORD.

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

See S. 368 for text as entered.

Submitted Resolutions

S. Res. 37 Designating March 26, 2007 as "National Support the Troops Day

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

See S. Res. 37 for text as Submitted.

Amendments Submitted and Proposed

SA 137 - Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. SA 138 - Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, examining the economic impacts of climate change and stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224-6722 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-5836.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on transportation sector fuel efficiency, including challenges to and incentives for increased oil savings through technological innovation including plug-in hybrids.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Michael Carr at (202) 224-8164 or Rachael Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus, USA, to be General and Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, to hold an oversight hearing on DOD/VA Collaboration and Cooperation to Meet the Needs of Returning Service members. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

S. 1 TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 TITLE II--LOBBYING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 Subtitle A--Enhancing Lobbying Disclosure Subtitle B--Oversight of Ethics and Lobbying Subtitle C--Slowing the Revolving Door Subtitle D--Ban on Provision of Gifts or Travel by Lobbyists in Violation of... Subtitle E--Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007 TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 Page: S992 RULE XLIV earmarks Page: S993 Page: S994 Page: S995 TITLE II--LOBBYING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 Subtitle A--Enhancing Lobbying Disclosure Page: S996 Page: S997 Subtitle B--Oversight of Ethics and Lobbying Subtitle C--Slowing the Revolving Door Page: S998 Subtitle D--Ban on Provision of Gifts or Travel by Lobbyists in Violation of... Subtitle E--Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007 Page: S999 TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the...

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 41, just received from the House and at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A House concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) was agreed to.

HOUSE PAGE BOARD REVISION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 475, received from the House and at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 475) to revise the composition of the House of Representatives Page Board to equalize the number of members representing the majority and minority parties and to include a member representing the parents of pages and a member representing former pages, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the RECORD as if read, with no intervening action.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill (H.R. 475) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

ORDER FOR RECESS AND ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2007 -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 8:30 p.m. this evening and that at 8:40 p.m., Members then proceed as a body to the House of Representatives for the State of the Union Address; that upon the conclusion of the address, the Senate then stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 24; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the majority and Republican leaders or their

designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that the majority control the first half and the Republicans the second portion; that at 10:30 a.m., there be an hour for debate prior to the cloture vote on the Gregg amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between the majority and Republican leaders or their designees; that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Gregg amendment; and that Members have until 10:30 a.m. to file second-degree amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

PROGRAM -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, we will have a period for the transaction of morning business and then an hour for debate prior to the cloture vote. The cloture vote on the Gregg amendment will occur at 11:30 a.m. Also, Members will have until 10:30 a.m. to file second-degree amendments.

RECESS -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 5:29 p.m., recessed until 8:30 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. BROWN).

JOINT SESSION OF THE TWO HOUSES--ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110- -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear the address by the President of the United States.

Thereupon, the Senate, preceded by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Drew Willison, the Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, and the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, proceeded to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear the address by the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

(The address delivered by the President of the United States to the joint session of the two Houses of Congress is printed in the proceedings of the House of Representatives in today's Record.)

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW -- (Senate - January 23, 2007)

At the conclusion of the joint session of the two Houses and in accordance with the order previously entered, at 10:09 p.m., the Senate adjourned until Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.

Resources

Related areas

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../s/e/n/Senate_Record_4-_January_23%2C_2007_3401.html"

This page was last modified 07:13, 4 February 2007 by dKosopedia user Lestatdelc. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ
View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Bug reports