Jornada Experimental Range Transfer Act of 2007

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.