Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am proud today to join with my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Coleman, Senator Feingold, and Senator Vitter, to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. If enacted, this bill would close an incomprehensible legal loophole that has allowed our Nation's freight railroads the unfettered ability to act in anti-competitive ways for too many years. Since before I came to the United States Senate I have been quite stunned at the ability of railroad companies, by virtue of an exemption from our antitrust laws, to ignore the legitimate complaints of their customers, to sidestep the appropriate concerns of elected officials and leaders in the private sector alike, and to consolidate operations and power to the detriment of the consumer.

The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act would benefit businesses, employees, and consumers by providing meaningful government oversight where none exists currently. It will give our Nation's shippers--long captive to monopoly abuses courts were powerless to check, the Surface Transportation Board was unwilling to acknowledge--remedies that will make for a more open and competitive freight rail marketplace.

In my home State of West Virginia and in towns all across the country, companies and consumers are negatively impacted by lack of competitive rail transportation options--a phenomenon often referred as a shipper being ``captive'' to one railroad. Because the antitrust exemptions in place allowed railroads to ignore the rules by which virtually all other American corporations are required to operate, railroads have refused to negotiate in good faith with their customers over the costs of shipping important rail-dependent commodities such as coal, bulk chemicals, and grains and other agricultural products. Manufacturers have been left at the mercy of the railroads and are forced to pay exorbitant transportation rates to ship their goods. Many manufacturers struggle to be competitive with competitors here and abroad because they simply do not have real transportation choices. The bottom line, which should come as no surprise to my colleagues, is that if industrial inputs and the fuel used to produce half of our electricity are artificially high in price, consumers are left paying higher prices for just about everything they buy. This continues to have an overwhelmingly negative affect on West Virginia's economy, as industries served by only one carrier face pressures to cut production in the state, or to leave it altogether.

How has this been allowed to come to pass? It will probably come as a shock to members of the Senate, but the railroad industry is exempt from the Nation's antitrust laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and pooling arrangements approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). They are also exempt from antitrust laws that would otherwise influence ratemaking. Under the current exemptions, private parties cannot file antitrust suits against railroad companies to halt what in would be for every other industry illegal practices. Under current law, railroads are allowed to continue a wide range of anti-competitive practices that severely inhibit the ability of our Nation's businesses from shipping their goods at reasonable rates. What this Nation has experienced in the more than 25 years since the Staggers Act partially deregulated the freight rail market are not efforts by railroads to modernize their systems, improve efficiency, and upgrade service. Rather, rail carriers have manipulated the system to charge their so- called ``captive'' customers as much as they chose to charge, not what the market would normally bear.

Specifically, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will alter exemptions in current law to allow for the following: Permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review mergers under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, and allow them to bring legal action to block anti-anticompetitive railroad mergers. Remove antitrust exemptions that have allowed railroads to merge, acquire new properties, set rates collectively, and otherwise coordinate policies across the entire freight rail market. Allow State Attorneys-General and other private parties to sue for treble damages for violations of antitrust laws, including for collusive activity leading to excessive and unreasonable

rates. Allow State Attorneys General and private parties to sue for court orders to halt anticompetitive conduct. Expand the jurisdiction of the FTC to allow it to enforce antitrust law in the railroad industry.

By granting consumers and shippers long-denied access to the protections of our antitrust laws with regard to the freight rail industry, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act may make strides toward creating the competitive freight rail marketplace envisioned by Congress when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. I hope so. However, because I believe rail customers and retail consumers need greater protection still, along with some of my cosponsors today and others, later this month I will be introducing additional, broader rail policy legislation to declare the rights shippers were meant to have, and the responsibilities railroads were meant to have, when Congress passed the Staggers Act.

For the system to work, there must be a meaningful way to seek redress of grievances and punish wrongdoing. The Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act will go a long way toward correcting some of the glaring problems those of us who pay attention to the rail marketplace have known about for a long time. It will not fix all the problems in the system, but perhaps its provisions will encourage railroads to negotiate with their customers in good faith. The lack of fairness in the current system is devastating to businesses in my state of West Virginia, and to companies and consumers in every part of the country.

I again express my support for the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This is a problem that affects rural America and urban America, the Grain Belt and the Coalfields, and all points on the compass. Indeed, no American consumer is unaffected by this problem, and all American consumers should take heart: If we enact this bill, help will be on the way.

Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West.

The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.

Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.

At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted.

Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a- day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.''

At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.

Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that

has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency.

To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets.

Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain vehicle types and between manufacturers.

Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.

By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home.

Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required at their primary place of work.

This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing, lowers pollution.

Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the most aggressive.

Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of ``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. While there are several States that have ``convenience of the employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their income earned from home.

According to Connecticut's attorney general, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, it isn't only Connecticut residents who are at risk.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York office of Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996 and paid New York state income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York state income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of the employer'' rule.

These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages people from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing state when the nonresident is actually working in another state. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation does-- is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by

having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of services paid for and maintained by Connecticut, including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue that deals with a small group of citizens from one small state.

Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home.

Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required at their primary place of work.

This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing, lowers pollution.

Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the most aggressive.

Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of ``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. While there are several States that have ``convenience of the employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their income earned from home.

According to Connecticut's attorney general, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, it isn't only Connecticut residents who are at risk.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York office of Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996 and paid New York state income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York state income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of the employer'' rule.

These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages people from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing state when the nonresident is actually working in another state. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation does-- is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by

having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of services paid for and maintained by Connecticut, including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue that deals with a small group of citizens from one small state.

Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

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

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe it is my role to investigate and help end-- monopolistic practices that exploit American consumers. In that spirit, I rise today to introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Feingold, Vitter and Rockefeller, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition.

Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under the exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack of competition was recently documented in a Government Accountability Office October 2006 report. That report found that, ``concerns about competition and captivity, in the rail industry, remain as traffic is concentrated in fewer railroads.'' The report also stated that the Surface Transportation Board, the entity charged with ensuring that the industry remains competitive, has failed to do so. In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed.

The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.

These exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations-- Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.

And similar stories exist across the country. That is why I'm joining with my colleagues to introduce the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses.

The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antirust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions.

No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition.

Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, State attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti- competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow State attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates.

In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.

It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues to support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, today I join my good friend, Sen. George Voinovich, in introducing a bill to study the current state and future needs of our national infrastructure, including rail, airports, wastewater

treatment facilities, waterways and levees.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the Nation's infrastructure to a good condition. Clearly, we need to look at our needs and find a better way to maintain the infrastructure we have, while meeting new demand--all in a way that is fiscally sustainable.

Last Congress, during the debate about the surface transportation reauthorization, we discussed the problems facing our roadways. Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion per year in repairs and operating costs and 3.5 billion hours a year in traffic. Over 27 percent of the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While transit use increased faster than any other mode of transportation--up 21 percent--between 1993 and 2002, the Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain conditions.

In Delaware, while population growth grew a robust 23 percent from 1990 to 2003, vehicle travel on our highways increased 38 percent. And driving on roads in need of repair cost Delaware motorists $160 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. To take a look at what must be done to maintain our highways and transit as well as address future needs, and ways to pay for all of that, Congress created a commission to study these issues in SAFETEA-LU and report back to Congress with recommendations.

But there are more types of infrastructure in need of attention than just highways and transit. Air travel has reportedly surpassed pre- September 11, 2001, levels and is projected to grow 4.3 percent annually through 2015. Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. And the EPA estimates that $390 billion over the next 20 years will be needed to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands.

Further, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints and delays, as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50 percent by 2020 and intercity passenger rail ridership has increased to approximately 25 million a year. To accommodate both freight and passenger rail demand, $12-13 billion a year in investments will be needed.

After Hurricane Katrina led to the failure of floodwalls in New Orleans, Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to inspect other flood control structures to identify other repair needs. The Corps found that 146 levees in 28 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are in danger of failing.

In Delaware, vehicle travel on our highways has increased 38 percent from 1990 to 2003, costing Delaware motorists $160 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs--$273 per motorist. Delaware also has $304 million in drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years and $288 million in wastewater infrastructure needs.

Understanding the problem and plotting a plan of attack are essential for attracting and maintaining business and investment in our economy and communities. The legislation we are proposing today would give the National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States until February 15, 2009, to complete a study of the Nation's infrastructure, in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies as well as private sector stakeholders. The Commission would study the age and condition of public infrastructure, the capacity to sustain current and anticipated economic development, the methods used to finance public infrastructure, and the return to the economy from public works investment.

Many times, when we debate infrastructure needs, people simply call for additional funds. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is losing confidence in the way we invest their tax dollars. Failures, like the floodwalls in New Orleans, harm confidence in the government's ability to protect communities from natural disasters. The fact that we've made no changes to the Corps' flood control program in the wake of that catastrophic failure has further damaged government credibility.

Increasing traffic in spite of the investment of billions of dollars every year in highways and bridges reduces confidence in government's ability to address traffic congestion. Failure to invest in rail while both freight usage and passenger ridership is at all time highs makes the taxpayer doubt that government is spending their tax dollars according to the needs of the people.

Part of the solution is, likely, greater funding. But the American people need to be confident in the products we provide before they are going to sign a check for more funding. That is why the Commission will study innovative financing, such as tax-credit bonds and private investment. But also, the Commission will study the impact of State and local governments' land use and economic development decisions on Federal infrastructure costs, and provide Congress with some insight as to how the various levels of government can better coordinate to gain greater efficiencies from our infrastructure investment.

Stronger coordination, greater investment and creativity are the keys to maintaining our infrastructure and investing in future needs--as well as a healthy and robust economy. I look forward to guidance from this Commission as to how Congress can better do just that.

Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to re- introduce--with some changes--a bill that I first introduced on April 6, 2004, in the 108th Congress and which I reintroduced in the 109th Congress. This bill will transfer 3,083 acres of Federal land to the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, and authorize the Park to purchase up to 821 acres of neighboring private lands from willing sellers. The lands in question contain important freshwater wetlands, and would allow the park boundary to conform to existing waterways and levee corridors.

As of today, the Senate has twice passed--once in the 108th Congress and once in the 109th Congress--a form of this bill by unanimous consent. I trust that few will find anything too objectionable about these provisions in the 110th Congress either. After all, it simply places lands that are already under Federal control under the management authority of the National Park Service, which already manages neighboring lands and helps protect their environmental, cultural and historic integrity.

The first major tract in question is the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands, which were acquired by the Justice Department in 1996 as a result of the settlement of a lawsuit. Although the National Park Service has constructive possession of the deeds, it lacks legal management authority. The area has exemplary natural resource values and has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a wetland of significant value. Most importantly, because of the hydrologic connection between the two areas, the environmental health of the Jean Lafitte Park's Barataria Preserve is dependent on the continued health of the Bayou aux Carpes.

The second major tract is the Bayou Segnette wetlands, which are presently managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The inclusion of this area in the Barataria Unit will allow for better control over water entering the park from outside sources.

My bill also authorizes the acquisition, from willing sellers, of approximately 821 acres of privately owned lands which are adjacent to the park. Approximately half of this area is designated as jurisdictional wetlands, with limited access and no potential for development. All of this land has been included within the boundary at the request of the owners. This provision was also included in the earlier versions of this bill that were passed in the 108th and 109th Congresses.

Lastly, allow me to explain what is new about this bill: this bill also authorizes the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve to acquire the Fleming-Berthoud Plantation--previously known as the Mavis Grove Plantation. This plantation is one of the southernmost early sugar plantations and surrounds a prehistoric Indian mound and historic cemetery on the edge of the bayou, which is one of the most scenic and most photographed cemeteries around New Orleans. Recently, it was highlighted in the recent Cabildo exhibition and book on historic cemeteries of New Orleans.

The original plantation contained more than 10,000 acres and was a large sugar plantation. After floods destroyed area sugar plantations in the 19th century, this was turned into one of the larger cypress tree lumbering plantations. The Berthoud family bought it in the late 19th century and the Fleming family bought it in the early 20th century.

The 1,000-year-old prehistoric Indian mound and historic above-ground tombstone cemetery are relatively well preserved and have been twice declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by state officials; though no action has yet been taken on that designation.

Currently, many of the historic plantation structures are unrestored, vacant and in poor condition. But the main plantation house remains in good condition. I have been told that it was photographed for the cover of National Geographic Magazine in the 1930s and has been the setting for close to 10 Hollywood movies.

The other buildings include a 75-foot, 175-year-old brick sugar refining chimney, in relatively good condition; an overseer's Creole style cottage from the mid 1800s cited by historians as a fine early example of island architecture; a 19th Century annex building connected to the original plantation house, now in poor condition; a 1920s house built on the original sugar refinery foundations; an early blacksmith shop and several other barns and buildings, most in poor condition.

My bill will authorize the National Park Service to acquire this land from the family, who I am told support the transaction and the restoration of the land and buildings. I am also told that historic preservation organizations may step forward to provide private funding in support of the National Park Service's acquisition of the land.

In all, I think that this bill marks an important day for Louisiana. We are authorizing the management and preservation of several ecological, cultural and historic gems. I hope that my colleagues will fully support this endeavor as they have in the past.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Paycheck Fairness Act in recognition of Women's History Month. I'd like to thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Boxer, Cantwell, Dodd, Feingold, Klobuchar, Leahy, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Reid and Schumer for joining me in reintroducing this legislation to prevent, regulate and reduce pay discrimination for women across the country. I also want to acknowledge Congresswoman DeLauro for being the champion of this legislation in the House of Representatives.

As America celebrates Women's History Month, it's important that we not only take pride in how far women have come in our lifetime, but also recognize the work we must continue to achieve true pay equity in this country. Over the past four decades, we have made tremendous strides in closing the wage gap between women and men. But research still shows us that pay discrimination continues to result in women earning less than men for performing the same job.

Today, women working full time, year-round, still make only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes--meaning that for every $100 she earns, a typical woman has $23 less to spend on groceries, housing, child care, or other expenses. Women of color fare even worse: African- American women earn only 67 cents, and Latinas only 56 cents, for every $1.00 earned by white men.

Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled ``Women Post Job Gains, Data Show.'' The article showcased proof of progress over the past decade. From the year 2000 through 2005, women posted a net increase of 1.7 million jobs paying above the median salary, while men gained a net increase of just over 220,000 of such positions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The issue of the wage gap, however, continues to affect women workers. In 2005, the median weekly pay for women

was $486, or 73 percent of that for men--$663.

While we often associate the pay wage with low-paying jobs, this inequity is not exclusive to the lower class. The New York Times recently reported that Wimbledon has finally agreed to pay its women tennis champions the same amount of prize money as their male counterparts. Last year's men's champion received $1.170 million, while the tournament's women's winner got $1.117 million.

That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act--a bill that will build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act and help close the pay gap.

The Paycheck Fairness Act has three main components.

First, it prevents pay discrimination before it starts. By helping women strengthen their negotiation skills and providing outreach and technical assistance to employers to ensure they fairly evaluate and pay their employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act gives employers the tools they need to level the playing field between men and women.

Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act creates strong penalties to punish those who do violate the act. By strengthening the penalties for employers who violate the Equal Pay Act, this bill sends a strong message--Equal Pay is a matter to be taken seriously.

And finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the Federal Government, which should be a model employer when it comes to enforcing Federal employment laws, uses every tool in its toolbox to ensure that women are paid the same amount as men for doing the same jobs.

There is no question that we have come a long way since the Equal Pay Act became law 44 years ago. But we still have a lot of work to do.

According to the National Committee on Pay Equity, working women stand to lose $250,000 over the course of their career because of unequal pay practices--a difference in pay that cannot be fully explained by experience, education, or other qualifications. And the pay gap follows women into retirement: unmarried women in the workforce today will receive, on average, about $8,000 per year less in retirement income than their male counterparts. As a result, millions of American families lose out because equal pay is still not a reality.

It is my hope that many more of my colleagues will join me in recognizing this is more than a women's issue--it is a family issue. It is in all of our interests to allow women to support their families and to live with the dignity and respect accorded to fully engaged members of the workforce.