Election Jamming Prevention Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2006, along with my good friends Senators Akaka, Lugar, Mikulski, and Santorum.

This legislation would expand the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in a way that would increase cooperation with key allies in the war on terror while strengthening U.S. national security.

The bill provides a way for us to expand and improve the visa waiver system so that Americans are safer and our Nation is more prosperous for years to come.

This legislation comes at a particularly important time in our Nation's history. We are currently facing multiple foreign policy challenges in the post-9/11 world. We need the cooperation of several allies to combat transnational threats. As such, we are asking our friends and allies to contribute more of their troops and resources to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts in the world, so that we can be successful. This legislation will help us to solidify these relationships and increase goodwill toward the U.S. for years to come, while also enhancing travel security and safety at home.

My legislation would authorize the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, to expand the Visa Waiver Program to countries that are true friends of America and prepared to do more to help us keep terrorists and criminals out of our borders.

For those that do not know about the Visa Waiver Program, it was established in 1986 to improve relations with U.S. allies and strengthen the U.S. economy. The program permitted nationals from the selected countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism or business.

Currently, 27 countries participate in the program, including the United Kingdom. But there are a number of new allies who would also like to participate in the Visa Waiver Program and are willing to meet strict security requirements and cooperate on counterterrorism initiatives.

Many of these countries were former members of the Soviet Union. They were victims of Soviet oppression for years, against their will, and despite their desire for freedom.

Today, many of these countries have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to help us stop the terrorists and promote democracy. These countries are naturally suited to help other countries as they fight for freedom and democracy. Many of these countries are also actively engaged in Cuba, helping to promote democracy there. Likewise, they have a unique understanding of the struggle for democracy that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite their commitments to the principles of freedom and democracy, these countries are still paying a price that other countries in the West do not pay. Citizens of Portugal, the U.K., or Spain can travel easily to the U.S., while citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are given second-class treatment.

I would like to share a few examples to put a human face on this problem.

I recently learned of a story involving a young Czech officer who served in Iraq with Americans. This soldier wanted to come to America to visit the American friends he made during combat operations. But his application for a visa was refused. Why? Because his passport included a visit to Iraq, the very place he served with American soldiers.

Another example involves young students from places like Latvia, Estonia, or Bulgaria. These young people have a positive view of America and hope to visit our country. However, their expensive visa applications are frequently rejected, dampening their spirits and tainting their image of America. And this view is spreading every day.

By limiting travel to the U.S., we are risking a loss of influence with the future leaders of our closest allies.

I have been working for the last several months to develop a piece of legislation that will address these challenges, without sacrificing U.S. security. I was pleased when I heard President Bush announce his intention to focus on this issue in the coming year. On the margins of the NATO Summit in Riga, he called on Congress to expand the Visa Waiver Program so that we can reward our closest allies for their help and friendship.

I agree with the President--but I want to clarify that this is not simply a reward for these countries. The true reward is the knowledge that we are free and democratic countries working together to advance international security. But the foremost goal of this legislation is to create mutually beneficial partnerships with clear national security advantages for the United States.

By continuing on the current path, we risk marginalizing some of our closest allies in the war on terror and losing the hearts and minds of their future leaders and citizens. We have an opportunity to change direction in a way that will promote our own national security interests and improve control of our borders. The Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act can achieve all of these objectives.

What would this bill do?

The legislation would expand visa-free travel privileges for up to five new countries, for a probationary period of 3 years.

In order for a country to participate in the plan, the executive branch would first need to certify that the country is cooperative on counterterrorism and does not pose a security or law enforcement threat to the United States. However, the country would also be required to take a number of new steps to enhance our common security.

Prior to participation, the countries would be required to conclude new agreements with the United States to further strengthen cooperation on counterterrorism and improve information-sharing about critical security issues.

Some might say--if these countries are key allies, aren't they cooperating with us already? The answer is yes. They are very cooperative. But in today's heightened security environment, there is more that each country can do, such as sharing additional sensitive information that can help our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies investigate threats and combat terrorist activity. By negotiating new agreements on counterterrorism and information- sharing to permit participation in the Visa Waiver Program, we can reduce threats to the United States.

Additionally, the legislation would require the countries to enact a number of significant security measures, which would limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries and impede travel by terrorists and transnational criminals. Security standards required for participation in the program would include electronic passports with biometric information, as well as prompt reporting of lost, stolen, or fraudulent travel documents to the U.S. and Interpol.

These new requirements would help make the U.S. more secure. Expanding the number of participating countries would increase the number of states meeting common security standards. This would allow the United States to shift consular resources used to issue visas to other missions with more critical security needs.

If at any time, participant countries are not complying with these requirements, their probationary status in the program could be revoked. Likewise, if the program is determined to be successful, it could be expanded to include additional countries.

The last part of the legislation is aimed at enhancing security requirements for countries who are currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. In this post 9/11 world, the U.S. Government has already required additional security measures of participating visa waiver countries, such as machine-readable passports with biometric information. But we can and must do more.

I was very pleased that last week, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recommended several new measures to further enhance the efficiency and security of the Visa Waiver Program. His

recommendations included an electronic travel authorization system, additional passenger information exchanges, common standards for airport security and baggage screening, cooperation in the air marshal program, and home country assistance in repatriation for any traveler who overstays the terms of their visa or violates U.S. law.

As the administration works to develop the details of these recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for the Visa Waiver Program improvements.

In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.

As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and the visa waiver system overall.

Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee- jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward.

As the administration works to develop the details of these recommendations, my legislation would require that within one year, the executive branch provide a report to Congress on its plans for Visa Waiver Program improvements.

In addition to the benefits to foreign relations and homeland security, this bill would do a great deal to advance U.S. competitiveness. Visa-free travel to the United States has been proven to significantly boost tourism and business, as well as airline revenues, and would generate substantial economic benefits to the United States well into the future. Additionally, it would improve attitudes toward the United States throughout the world, which would benefit the U.S. economy and national security for generations to come.

As a member of both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, I believe that we have a real opportunity to improve our foreign relations, our homeland defense, and the visa waiver system overall.

Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the Senate and the House to examine this legislation with a serious eye, refraining from the knee- jerk reaction that an expanded program is bad for national security. When you look at the facts involved and the opportunities ahead, you can see that we have a chance to improve security cooperation and strengthen the bonds of friendship with our allies in the war on terror.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and the President to move this legislation forward.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2006. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families.

An October 2006 College Board report found that this year tuition and other costs at public and private universities rose faster than inflation. And, according to the report, tuition and fees at public universities rose more in the past five years than at any other time in the past 30 years, increasing by 35 percent to $5,836 this academic year. Over the same time period, tuition and fees at private universities increased 22 percent to $22,218.

Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around the country, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for college for their children. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible.

In 1997, we implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE credit and the lifetime learning credit. These tax credits were important and have helped families afford college, but I believe we can do more. This week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax incentives for higher education in which we learned that the existing tax credits are not reaching enough students, particularly lower income students who are most severely impacted by rising tuitions.

The HOPE and lifetime learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the lifetime learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is nearly double the average annual public four-year college tuition and four times the average annual tuition of a community college. Over 80 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $10,000.

In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of 4 years of college. Currently the HOPE Credit applies only to the first 2 years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2006, COTC, helps students and parents afford all 4 years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts, including those at this week's Finance Committee hearing. My legislation creates a new credit that replaces the existing HOPE credit and lifetime learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous.

The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit to the next $3,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $2,500 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses.

Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the lifetime learning credit apply to the COTC: the COTC will be phased out ratably for taxpayers with income between $45,000 and $55,000--$90,000 and $110,000 for married taxpayers. These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses.

The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2006 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality next Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this year we witnessed a historic election, where the American people said loud and clear that the Nation is going in the wrong direction and things must change. One important part of that change is cleaning up our electoral process.

Dirty tricks are not a new thing in American politics. I am from Chicago, and my hometown has seen its share of political tricks. But some of tricks we have seen in recent elections astounded even those of us who thought we had seen everything.

For example, in 2002, the executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee saw flyers advertising telephone numbers for Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts that offered voters rides to the polls. The executive director then hatched the idea of jamming those phone lines on election day to prevent voters from getting rides to the polls.

He consulted the New England Regional Political Director for the Republican National Committee, who led him to an associate who could handle phone jamming efforts, an outfit called GOP Marketplace. GOP Marketplace contacted an Idaho-based tele-services company that agreed to have employees place hang-up calls to the Manchester Democratic Party and the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association--the two groups offering rides--on election day, November 5, 2002.

As a result of these efforts, the New Hampshire Democratic Party's get-out-the-vote volunteers and employees answered the phones only to find callers who said nothing and immediately hung up. Legitimate voters who called the Manchester Democratic Party or the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association seeking a ride to the polls received busy signals.

The Department of Justice prosecuted many of those responsible for this dirty campaign, and some of the guilty have already served their sentences. These men were tried under existing phone harassment and civil rights laws. However, it is likely that the perpetrators of the next phone jamming effort will not be so ham-handed. General harassment laws may be insufficient to get at the next conspiracy. And even in the most recent election, we continue to hear about instances in which phone lines are misused.

That is why I am introducing the Election Jamming Prevention Act today. This bill will ensure that those who seek to disable election- related telephone communications will be criminally liable. This does not impede political speech--but this does stop nefarious efforts to shut down phone lines to cripple election-related efforts. From get- out-the-vote efforts, to voter education campaigns, qualified voters deserve to have access to information that will assist them in the exercise of their right to vote. Someone's ability to hire a company to place hang-up calls should not determine whether voters get the information they need to go to the polls on election day.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue, so I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide for credit rate parity under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code for electricity from eligible renewable resources produced and sold after December 31, 2006.

Currently, certain renewable resources such as wind and closed-loop biomass receive a credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour produced. For other renewables, such as open-loop biomass and incremental hydropower, the amount of the credit is reduced by half.

I have been a longtime supporter of the production tax credit. There are significant wind facilities in Oregon, where we have over 335 megawatts of installed wind capacity. These facilities provide clean energy as well as important revenues to farmers and rural counties in Eastern Oregon. My bill does not reduce the credit rate for wind but, rather, increases the rate for those renewables that are currently eligible only for the reduced credit rate.

I have also heard from those industries that receive the reduced credit rate about the disadvantage this creates for them in the marketplace. Often, when bidding to provide green power, the difference in the credit rate makes the difference in being outbid. We should provide a level playing field for all eligible renewables.

I applaud and support the current efforts to extend the existing section 45 tax credits for renewables for another year. I hope that can be accomplished before we adjourn sine die. In introducing this legislation today, I want to begin the discussion that will lead to parity for all of the important new renewable technologies that can help us meet growing demands for electricity with clean, sustainable resources. As a member of the Finance Committee, this is an issue which I will pursue next Congress, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to encourage the development of renewable energy resources.