A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to make technical corrections to the renewable fuel standard.

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 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.

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 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.

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, 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 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.

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.

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 Senator Grassley and myself in sponsoring this commonsense piece of legislation.

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,

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.

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.