A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the subpart F exemption for active financing income.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mel Martinez as we introduce a package of bills aimed at providing a comprehensive solution to strengthen our Nation's property and casualty insurance market. Without serious reform, the Federal Government will be forced to continue to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to cover the costs of natural disasters in the United States. Worse, without Federal action, property insurance soon will become more expensive and hard to find, preventing some consumers from insuring their homes and businesses.

As we know all too well, the last few years have brought a devastating cycle of natural catastrophes in the United States. In 2004 and 2005, we witnessed a series of powerful hurricanes that caused unthinkable human tragedy and property loss. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone caused over $200 billion in total economic losses, including insured and uninsured losses.

In my own home State of Florida, eight catastrophic storms in fifteen months caused more than $31 billion in insured damages. Now Florida is witnessing skyrocketing insurance rates, insurance companies are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies, and Florida's State catastrophe fund is depleted.

In short, the inability of our private markets to fully handle the fallout from natural disasters has made our Nation's property and casualty insurance marketplace unstable. This market instability repeatedly has forced the Federal Government to absorb billions of dollars in uninsured losses. This is a waste of taxpayer money, especially when we know there are ways to design the system to anticipate and plan for the financial impacts of catastrophes.

As insurance companies struggle to maintain their businesses, costs are passed on to homeowners and small businesses in Florida and in other States. In essence, the people who can least afford it are being forced to bear the disproportionate share of the billions of dollars of losses caused by natural catastrophes.

Many Floridians have seen their insurance bills double in the last few years. As I travel around Florida, I hear repeatedly from my constituents that they may soon be unable to afford property and casualty insurance. That is a frightening proposition for people living in a State where increasingly vicious hurricane seasons are predicted. I am sure we all agree--consumers never should be put in the untenable position of having to choose between purchasing insurance and purchasing other necessities.

While our Nation's property and casualty insurance system is not yet broken, it's clear that Congress needs to act now to shore up the system. Private sector insurance is currently available to spread some catastrophe-related losses throughout the Nation and internationally, but most experts believe that there will be significant insurance and reinsurance shortages. These shortages could result in future dramatic rate increases for consumers and businesses and the unavailability of catastrophe insurance.

Let me be clear: these issues will not just affect Florida or the coastal States. Natural catastrophes can strike anywhere in the country. For example, a major earthquake fault line runs through several of our Midwestern States. We also saw firsthand the devastating effects of a volcano eruption at Mount Saint Helens in Washington State.

In the past few decades, major disasters have been declared in almost every State. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Government has provided and will continue to provide billions of dollars and resources to pay for these catastrophic losses, at huge costs to all American taxpayers.

Congress has struggled with these issues for decades. Although we have talked about these issues time and time again, nothing much has gotten accomplished. The most notable step Congress did take was to create a National Flood Insurance Program. But Congress needs to do much more. It's time for a comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's property and casualty insurance issues.

These matters are usually within the purview of the States, and I cannot understate the importance of State-based solutions to these insurance issues. Nonetheless, the Federal Government also has a critical interest in ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk management of catastrophes.

For example, mortgages require reliable property insurance, and the unavailability of reliable property insurance would make most real estate transactions impossible. Moreover, the public health, safety, and welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in catastrophes be reconstructed as soon as possible.

In order to help protect consumers and small businesses, today I join Senator Martinez to introduce this package of bills as part of a comprehensive approach to fixing our troubled insurance system. Let me summarize each of the bills and tell you how this integrated approach makes good policy sense.

The first piece of legislation Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to legislation introduced by Florida Representatives Brown-Waite, Buchanan, and others.

This bill would establish a Fund within the U.S. Department of Treasury, which would sell Federal catastrophe insurance to State catastrophe funds; like the fund I helped to set up in Florida. State catastrophe funds essentially act as reinsurance mechanisms for insurance companies who lack resources to compensate homeowners for their losses.

Under this bill, State catastrophe funds would be eligible to purchase reinsurance from the Federal fund at sound rates. However, a State catastrophe fund would be prohibited from gaining access to the Federal fund until private insurance companies and the State catastrophe fund met their financial obligations.

Why is this good for homeowners? Because this back-up mechanism will improve the solvency and capacity of homeowners' insurance markets, which will reduce the chance that consumers will lose their insurance coverage or be hit by huge premium increases.

Importantly, the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007 also recognizes that part of the problem with our broken property and casualty insurance system lies with outdated building codes and mitigation techniques. Noted insurance experts and consumer groups have been pointing out this problem for many years. So, under the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury would establish an expert commission to assist States in developing mitigation, prevention, recovery, and rebuilding programs that would reduce the types of enormous damage we have seen caused by past hurricanes.

I note that this bill covers not just hurricanes, but catastrophes such as tornados, earthquakes, cyclones, catastrophic winter storms, and volcanic eruptions. These are disasters that can--and do--occur in many different States. Again, every State and every taxpayer is affected by this problem, not just Florida.

This bill has widespread support from a broad range of stakeholders, including ProtectingAmerica.org, a national coalition of first responders, businesses, and emergency managers. This organization is co-chaired by former FEMA director James Lee Witt, one of the most respected names in disaster prevention and preparedness.

The second bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Catastrophic Savings Accounts Act of 2007. This bill proposes changing the Federal tax code to allow homeowners to put money aside-- on a tax-free basis--to grow over time. If and when a catastrophe hits, a homeowner could take the accumulated savings out of the account to cover uninsured losses, deductible expenses, and building upgrades to mitigate damage that could be caused in future disasters. Homeowners could even reduce their insurance premiums because their tax-free savings would allow them to choose higher deductibles.

The benefits of this approach are pretty straightforward and very consumer friendly. Homeowners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters, and they wouldn't be taxed to do it. Moreover, homeowners wouldn't be as dependent on insurance companies to help them out immediately after a disaster. As one expert has noted, why should a consumer continue to give insurance companies thousands of dollars each year when the consumer could deposit the same amount of money annually in a tax-free, interest-bearing savings account controlled by the consumer?

The third bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007. Under this bill, insurance companies would be permitted to accumulate tax-deferred catastrophic reserves, much like the way that homeowners would be permitted under the bill I just discussed. Depending on their size, insurance companies could save up to a certain capped amount, which would grow over time.

Our current Federal tax code actually provides a disincentive for insurance companies to accumulate reserve funds for catastrophes. Under the current system, insurance companies can only reserve against losses that have already occurred, instead of future losses. The United States is the only industrialized nation that actually taxes reserves in this way. It's time for reform, so that consumers are better protected.

Make no mistake, though--this bill is not a give-away to the insurance companies. Instead, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 would strictly regulate when and how insurance companies could access their reserves, to make sure the money is used only for its intended purposes.

If implemented correctly, this bill could result in approximately $15 billion worth of reserves being saved up by insurance companies, which later could be spent to pay for policyholder claims and to keep insurance policies available and affordable. Consumers could feel more protected knowing that their insurance company would have the money saved to help them out after a major disaster. Moreover, this approach should help make the insurance market more stable and less prone to insurers going bankrupt.

The fourth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Hurricane and Tornado Mitigation Investment Act of 2007. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Gus Bilirakis and has eight cosponsors.

We have learned through experience that steps taken to fortify and strengthen homes and businesses can prevent damage in the event of a catastrophe. This bill would allow a tax credit of 25 percent not to exceed $5,000 for the costs of building upgrades to mitigate damage caused by hurricanes or tornados.

Updates and improvements to roofs, exterior doors and garages would be covered under this bill. To ensure that these measures are adequately constructed, a state-certified inspector must examine the home or business. The benefits of this approach are straightforward-- home and business owners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters and take steps to mitigate damage caused by catastrophic events.

The fifth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2007. Last year, a similar bill, introduced by Ginny Brown-Waite passed unanimously in the House of Representatives.

Currently, a small percentage of consumers may be unable to find insurance from a licensed insurer, and may be able to purchase insurance from non-licensed insurers, called nonadmitted or surplus lines insurers. These surplus lines insurers often function as a ``safety valve'' for the insurance market. Florida has more individuals in the surplus lines market than any other State.

Virtually every sector--insurers, producers, consumers--has voiced concern with the inefficient patchwork of different laws and regulations that characterize the surplus lines regulatory system. This bill aims to streamline regulations in the surplus lines marketplace through a mix of national standards with State enforcement and uniformity achieved through both incentives and preemption of certain State laws. This bill would create a more efficient and streamlined regulatory system and promote competition in the nonadmitted marketplace.

The sixth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007. From the storms of 2004 and 2005 we learned the importance of accurate hurricane tracking and prediction. Accurate prediction provides residents of coastal communities more time to find safe and sound shelter.

The objective of this bill is to enhance and improve knowledge of hurricanes by harnessing the expertise of the Federal Government's science professionals to better understand hurricane prediction, intensity, and mitigation on coastal populations and infrastructure.

Let me emphasize again what we need to accomplish to reform our current insurance system and to effectively plan for catastrophic losses.

We need a comprehensive approach that will make sure the United States is truly prepared for the financial fallout from natural disasters. We need a property and casualty insurance system that is not forced to spread valuable taxpayer dollars after a catastrophe strikes. We need a system that protects consumers and small businesses from losing their insurance policies or being forced to pay exorbitant insurance rates. We need ways to encourage responsible construction and mitigation techniques. And we need a

system that helps insurance companies use their resources in cost- effective ways so that they will not go insolvent after major disasters.

Our American economy depends on a health property and casualty insurance system. By enacting meaningful reforms, we can ensure that our economy remains protected and remains the most resilient economy in the world. I know this complicated process won't be easy for us--but let's roll up our shirtsleeves and get it done.

I request that the text of the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act and the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that helps the U.S. Forest Service to protect sensitive and precious forest by selling developed land in Leon County, FL, in order to purchase at-risk land in the heart of our national forests.

Specifically, this bill allows for the sale of tract W-1979, which is 114 acres in Tallahassee, the proceeds of which are specifically designated to purchase private inholdings in the Apalachicola National Forest. The Forest Service believes that W-1979 has lost its national forest character and is unmanageable; the land will be sold to Leon County, where it will help the continued advancement of Blueprint 2000, a series of community initiatives to improve Tallahassee and Leon County. By selling this land on the outskirt of the Apalachicola National Forest, the Forest Service can acquire precious land in the heart of the forest that could be lost to development.

This legislation also gives the U.S. Forest Service in Florida the same flexibility to manage lands and capital that many other states have. Previously, whenever National Forest land was sold, the funds could only be used to purchase more land, while many important infrastructure projects went undone. With passage of this bill, proceeds only from the sale of ``non-green'' lands can go towards capitol improvements, such as administrative facilities that help the Forest Service manage the Ocala, Apalachicola, and Osceola National Forests. These non-green lands have already been developed with urban improvements, and no longer align with the goals of the U.S. Forest Service.

Congressman Crenshaw and Boyd have introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I hope that we can quickly pass these bills and help Leon County and the Forest Service.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton, I am honored to introduce legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long-standing problem in our military survivors benefits system.

President Lincoln's words are as relevant and moving today as they were during the Civil War: ``as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''

Our Nation continues to be engaged in a violent struggle against brutal and vicious enemies around the world. Sadly, Americans are lost every day. We must never forget that the families left behind by our courageous men and women in uniform bear the greatest pain. Their survivors face a life forever altered, and a future left unclear. They suffer the greatest cost of the ultimate sacrifice, and the nation that asked for that sacrifice must honor it.

Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits plan--

or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the retiree or issued automatically in the case of servicemembers who die while on active duty. Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity.

For over five years, I've been talking about the unfair and painful offset between SBP and the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, which is received by the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause. Under current law, even if the surviving spouse of such a servicemember is eligible for SBP, that purchased annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC received. Another inequity in the current system is the delayed effective date for ``paid-up status'' under SBP. We should act to correct these injustices this year.

We have made progress, but even with the important changes made over the last few years, the offset still fails to take care of our military widows and surviving children the way it should. We have considered and adopted increased death gratuity benefits for the survivors of our troops lost in this war, and we have changed the law to enable these survivors to automatically enroll in SBP. However, now we see the pain caused when at the same moment a widow is enrolled in SBP she is hit with the DIC offset.

The SBP offset is no less painful for the survivors of our 100 percent disabled military retirees. SBP is a purchased annuity plan. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, I served as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida, and I know of no other purchased annuity program that can then turn around and refuse to pay you the benefits you purchased on the grounds that you are getting a different benefit from somewhere else.

Our Federal civil servants receive both their purchased survivor income protection annuity and any disability compensation for which they may be entitled--without offset. Why on earth would we treat our 100 percent disabled military retirees any differently, especially after they have given the best years of their lives and their health in service to the Nation?

Let me be clear about this: survivors of servicemembers are entitled in law to automatic enrollment in SBP; 100 percent disabled military retirees purchase SBP. Survivors stand to lose most or even all of the benefits under SBP only because they are also entitled to DIC.

This legislation also accelerates an improvement we made earlier to the SBP program. We have already agreed that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for thirty years should stop paying a premium, but we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further.

The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of liberty everywhere.

We owe them and their surviving family members a great debt.

Unfortunately, it is too often that we fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families have rendered.

We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care.

I appreciate the co-sponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton--and look forward to working with my colleagues in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to support introduction of the Integrated Deepwater Reform Act.

Since 1790, the United States Coast Guard has served as the guardian of our shores. It began its service to the Nation as a lifesaving organization, protecting our mariners from the perils of the sea. Over time, its missions have come to encompass additional responsibilities including performing drug and migrant interdiction, enforcing fisheries regulations, and maintaining our Nation's waterways and aids to navigation. Following the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, the Coast Guard expanded its role in homeland security operations, becoming the agency charged with protecting our Nation from maritime threats.

Though we have expanded the role of this valiant service, we have not upgraded its equipment to the degree necessary to carry out the tasks it has been assigned. Current Coast Guard vessels comprise the third oldest naval fleet in the world. Some of its cutters still in service are over sixty years old. Recognizing the looming obsolescence of its legacy fleet, in the mid 1990s the Coast Guard embarked on an effort to create a wholly integrated system of ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications systems and called the effort Deepwater. Recapitalizing the Coast Guard remains one of this Nation's most important National Security initiatives.

However, recent events have made it clear that additional Congressional oversight is warranted for this major acquisitions program. Failure of the 123-foot patrol boat conversion program, and questions about the fatigue life of the hull of the National Security Cutter under the purview of Integrated Coast Guard Systems have called into question the value of this ``lead systems integrator.'' The contract as written has given the contractor too much autonomy and not enough focus on actual performance.

By placing restrictions on the structure of any agreements between the Coast Guard and its contractors, this bill will ensure that future Deepwater contracts protect the American taxpayer while allowing the Coast Guard to acquire the assets necessary to carry out its critical responsibilities. We cannot change the simple fact that in order to protect our Nation, the Coast Guard must be able to upgrade its existing assets. The safety of the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard, and the security of every American depends on the success of this program.

I remain convinced that the Integrated Deepwater Program is the appropriate vehicle for the Coast Guard's modernization. However, in order for the Coast Guard to receive the best assets at the best value for the American taxpayer, Congress must ensure that the service and the contractors recognizes their joint commitment to both excellence and fiscal responsibility. By limiting the use of a lead systems integrator, increasing requirements for open competition, requiring additional internal Coast Guard management, and increasing reporting requirements to Congress, this bill provides that assurance.

I am proud to add this bill to my record of Coast Guard oversight. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Cantwell for all her hard work on this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce two pieces of legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that have plagued individuals and businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine, as well as in other parts of the country. What the first bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the Senate. The second piece of legislation would enable those economically depressed communities, already taking advantage of these incentives, to secure the full 15 years of targeted growth originally granted to the areas first designated as Empowerment Zones.

To fully grasp the importance of the former legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County,'' as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine. It shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships much of which is forest land and wilderness.

As profoundly remote as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the

economic isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most devastating effect on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number of quality jobs that residents require and deserve.

While officials in the region have put forward a herculean effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Center alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Maine State Planning Office predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England.

In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a staggering 40 percent of 15- to 29-year-olds left during the last decade.

The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the 1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start, and included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly 8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation, taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and another 1,751 in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars.

Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities, such as Houlton, literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on one side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation across from a neighboring business on the other side of the street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County communities who have equally suffered through continuing out-migration whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls.

The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic hardship and population out-migration are issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

With regards to the latter bill that I am offering today, I believe all Empowerment Zone communities need 15 years to reverse years of downward spiraling that originally effected their economies. I have long supported Empowerment Zone incentives and I believe that these targeted tax incentives provide struggling communities the best chance for sustained, long lasting economic renewal.

In 1994, Congress designated the first Empowerment Zones setting 2009, a 15-year time frame, as the date that these tax incentives would expire. The 2009 expiration date of Empowerment Zone status was held firm for Round II communities designated in 1997, and the Round III communities designated in 2002. As a result of the expiration date some communities such as Aroostook County, which was designated in 2002, are granted as few as 7 years to use tax incentives to overturn decades of decline and economic neglect.

Unfortunately, Aroostook's economic problems will not be fixed within the 7 short years this area qualifies for Empowerment Zone tax incentives. Instead a long-term and lasting commitment of at least 15 years is necessary to help Aroostook communities work their way to stronger economic prosperity. Many communities, such as Aroostook County, that were unable to qualify for Empowerment Zone status until 2002, are in dire need of the long-term 15-year window in which to address their stubborn causes of poverty.

Businesses operating within Empowerment Zones receive a 20 percent wage credit for the first $15,000 they pay in wages to local residents. Other tax incentives encourage businesses and industries to further commit to these communities. Companies with businesses in Empowerment Zones are eligible for an additional $35,000 worth of 179 business expensing--making these long-term business obligations more attractive, affordable and likely. Empowerment Zones are also eligible for expanded tax exempt financing for building the infrastructure communities need to attract long-term developers and business partners.

To qualify for Empowerment Zone status, communities develop comprehensive strategic plans that depend on these tax incentives to help them transform their economies. Each community's plan focuses on establishing long-term partnerships among private businesses, non profits, state, local, and federal government agencies to help develop the local economy. Together these parties use the community's strategic blue print to implement interconnected projects that address the factors creating the area's economic sickness. These types of projects concentrate on building much-needed business and industrial infrastructure, developing an educated workforce, and diversifying local economies away from a reliance on one employer or industry.

Through the Aroostook Partnership for Progress, and the businesses working in the Empowerment Zone, the County is making significant progress--the factors causing poverty in this rural part of Maine cannot be eradicated quickly. Aroostook County's strategic plan will take time to implement as infrastructure, industry and other initiatives produce greater economic capabilities and diversification. Though Aroostook County is working valiantly to overcome the factors causing their economic plight, they will need more than seven years to overcome 40 years of difficulties. I know that there are many other struggling Round II and Round III Empowerment Zone communities, such as Aroostook, who need the maximum, in order to reverse the poverty and underdevelopment also plaguing those areas.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of making a long-term pledge to communities using Empowerment Zone incentives to work its way out of long-term poverty. I hope that each Senator will support the communities in their states, currently undertaking the painful process of economic transformation, by supporting passage of this economic development bill.

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

Mr. President, today I address an issue of critical importance to Rhode Island's Federal Wage System employees.

Federal Wage System (FWS) employees are the Federal Government's blue-collar employees. In Rhode Island, these workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers. The majority of FWS employees in the United States work in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These workers are essential to the government's daily operation, and the work that they perform is important to our national security.

Regrettably, in the Narragansett Bay wage area, Federal blue-collar workers are faced with one of the lowest FWS pay scales, while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. The significant disparities between wages in the Narragansett Bay wage area and the proximate Boston and Hartford wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of these pay scales. In Rhode Island, an average wage grade worker earns $18.47 per hour, whereas the same worker in Boston earns $20.77 per hour and an employee in Hartford earns $19.99 per hour. Competitive compensation is the best way to ensure the retention of qualified and effective workers. Rhode Island should not suffer the loss of experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay.

The chair of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), which advises the Office of Personnel Management on decisions dealing with the FWS pay scales, has been left vacant, leaving the FPRAC unable to make needed decisions regarding these wage areas.

Due to the lack of a chair and any action by FPRAC or OPM, which I have long urged to resolve this matter, I am reintroducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act, and I am pleased that Senator Whitehouse is joining me as a cosponsor. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide regional pay equity to Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers. Merging these two wage areas will keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their government jobs for higher paying positions elsewhere in southern New England, and help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families. I urge that this long pending inequality be addressed.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce two bipartisan bills to expand access to college for students and their families.

We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress for the first time since 1998. The key to this reauthorization will be ensuring that we make a substantial Federal investment in need-based grant aid. I am pleased we took a significant first step down this path last month by increasing the maximum Pell Grant, the Federal Government's primary source of need-based financial aid, for the first time in four years. However, we are still far from the robust lift Congress provided students and their families in the mid-1970s, when the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of costs at a public 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 32 percent.

There has also been a concurrent increase in college costs. According to a recent report by the College Board, for the 2006-07 school year, tuition rose 6.3 percent at 4-year public colleges and 5.9 percent for 4-year private institutions. The combination of declining Federal investments in need-based aid and sharp increases in college costs has priced more and more qualified individuals out of college.

This is particularly troubling, given the strong correlation between educational attainment, employment, and wages. A college education has now increasingly become a necessary requirement for upward income mobility. College graduates, on average, earn 62 percent more than high school graduates. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings between those with a high school diploma and a bachelor's or higher degree exceeds $1 million.

To help increase the amount of need-based grant aid to low-income students and fulfill their unmet financial aid need, today I introduce the ACCESS, Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships, Act, cosponsored by Senators Collins, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, and

Sanders. This legislation improves the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program by forging a new Federal incentive for States to form partnerships with businesses, colleges, and private or philanthropic organizations to provide low-income students with increased need-based grant aid, early information and assurance of aid eligibility (beginning in middle school), and early intervention, mentoring, and outreach services. Research has shown that college access programs that combine these elements are successful in making the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus, more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion.

Since 1972, the Federal-State partnership embodied by LEAP, with modest Federal support, has helped leverage State grant aid to low-and moderate-income students. Without this important Federal incentive, many States would never have established need-based financial aid programs, and many States would not continue to maintain such programs. Last year, States matched approximately $65 million in Federal LEAP funds with over $840 million in supplemental need-based aid. By way of example, in my home State of Rhode Island, the Federal investment of approximately $350,000 in LEAP funds spurred the State to expend over $13 million in need-based aid.

The second bill I introduce today, the FAFSA Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act, cosponsored by Senators Collins, Kennedy, Murray, and Sanders, has several key components to make the college financial aid application process both simple and certain. First, our legislation would allow more students to qualify for an automatic-zero expected family contribution, or auto-zero, and align the auto-zero eligibility levels, income of $30,000 or less, with the standards of other Federal means-tested programs like school lunch, SSI, and food stamps. Second, the FAFSA Act would establish a short paper FAFSA or EZ-FAFSA for students who qualify for the auto-zero. Third, the bill phases out the long form, using the savings to utilize ``smart'' technology to create a tailored web-based application form and ensure that students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the state in which they reside. For those students who do not have access to the Internet, we propose creating a free telefile system for filing by phone.

The FAFSA Act would also emphasize providing students with the opportunity to complete financial applications earlier in order to receive early estimates of aid eligibility. This legislation would create a pilot program to test an early application system under which dependent students would apply for an aid estimate in their junior year, using the student's prior/prior year income (PPY). The pilot program also includes a requirement that the Secretary study the feasibility, benefits, and adverse effects of utilizing information from the IRS in order to simplify the financial aid process.

I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills. I am also pleased that both bills are supported by a range of higher education and student groups, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Association of College Admission Counseling, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the United States Student Association, and the College Parents of America. The FAFSA Act is supported by the Council of Graduate Schools as well.

We must act on these bills and continue to push for increased Federal investment in need-based aid to middle- and low-income students and their families. All too often successful students give up on a college education because they think there is no way they can ever afford it. We must ensure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

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

Mr. President, when we talk about college affordability, the discussion typically focuses on tuition costs, Pell grants and student loans. But we cannot talk about college affordability without also including college textbook costs in the same conversation.

Picture a bright, hard-working college student at the beginning of a new term. The student, who comes from a family of modest means, has managed to pay for tuition through a combination of grants, scholarships, student loans and part-time work. The student goes to her college bookstore to buy her textbooks. She walks out of the bookstore with her textbooks and wonders how she will be able to pay the $500 charge she just put on her credit card to buy the required books for her classes.

According to GAO, college textbook prices have risen an average of six percent each year since 1987 and at twice the rate of annual inflation over the last two decades. Textbook prices have been following increases in tuition and fees. Since December of 1986, textbook prices have increased by 186 percent and tuition and fees grew by 240 percent. GAO found that the primary contributing factor is the investment publishers have made to develop and produce supplemental materials such as CDs and Web-based tutorials.

The cost of textbooks and supplies as a percentage of tuition and fees depends on the type of institution the student is attending. GAO determined that the average estimated cost of books and supplies for full-time freshman students at four-year public schools was $898 in 2003, or about 26 percent of the cost of tuition and fees. At two-year public institutions, where the average student is more likely to be low-income, the average estimated cost was even higher due to lower tuition and fees at these schools. A first-year student at a two-year school spent a comparable amount--$886 on average, but that is nearly three-quarters of the cost of tuition and fees. Students at public two- year schools are trying to find an economical way to pursue higher education, but could easily be sidelined by high textbook costs.

What can be done to keep textbooks affordable for college students? Publishers, schools and bookstores can take any number of steps to help keep the cost of textbooks down. Schools, and in particular, professors, have tremendous power to help cut down the overall cost of textbooks. I was shocked to learn that many professors do not know the retail price of the textbook they are choosing for their class. The earlier a bookstore receives textbook information from a professor, the greater the ability of the bookstore to obtain cheaper used versions of the required text.

There are other actions that publishers and professors can take to help keep down the cost of textbooks, and that is why I am introducing the bipartisan College Textbook Affordability Act, cosponsored by Senator Coleman.

First, the bill requires transparency. Publishers must provide the price of a textbook in writing whenever a publisher's representative provides information on a textbook to a professor. The professor must also be provided the history of revisions for a textbook or supplemental material and whether the textbook or supplement is available in an alternative format, such as paperback, one- or two- colored editions, and loose-leaf editions. Publishers insist that access to such information is readily available to professors. If this is truly the case, then this bill will simply codify what publishers claim is already their industry's normal practice and would not be an undue burden placed on the industry.

Under the bill, textbooks and supplemental materials that are sold as a bundle must also be sold separately. The GAO report found that instructors are often unaware that the course materials they have chosen will be sold as a bundle.

The legislation also requires schools to do their part in managing textbook costs for students. Schools are required to include the international standard

book number, or ISBN number and the retail price of all required and optional materials in the course schedule for the upcoming term. This requirement would help ensure that bookstores receive book orders in time to stock up on any available used books and would provide students with plenty of time to search for lower-priced textbooks via alternative sources such as online booksellers or other students.

When asked, schools must also provide bookstores with access to the course schedule, ISBN numbers for required and optional course material, the maximum student enrollment for a course and the current enrollment numbers. Access to this information would allow bookstores to better estimate the amount of inventory they should maintain for each course. A school in my home state, Illinois State University, recognized the importance of giving students and bookstores early access to such information. ISU's online course schedule provides students with ISBN numbers, and bookstores are given access to course enrollment numbers as well as required and optional course materials.

Combined, these actions can help drive down the cost of textbooks and help make college more affordable for students. The college affordability conversation cannot focus only on raising federal grants and lowering student loan interest rates. There is no question that federal aid has not kept up with rising college costs. However, we must also look at why college costs, including textbook costs, continue to increase year after year.

I have heard stories of students, especially community college students, who decide to drop a semester or a year because they simply cannot afford the textbooks. This is just unacceptable. Textbook costs are a part, and in some cases a large part of college costs, and we must do what is within our power to ensure that students do not put their education on hold just because they cannot afford to buy the textbooks.

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

Mr. President, today, I, along with my colleague Senator Allard, am proud to introduce the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act (EPIAA.) This legislation will help to increase the availability of treatments, services, and interventions for both children and adults with autism.

Last year, I worked with my colleagues on the HELP Committee to pass the Combating Autism Act into law. This important bill will increase the amount and type of research we are doing to understand the origins of this disease, and help us develop new treatments--and eventually--a cure. It will also help to increase the ability of our health professionals to screen and diagnose autism as early as possible in children, so as to improve our ability to treat this disease.

But while we are carrying out the research that will lead us to gain a better understanding of this disorder, we cannot forget those who are and who have been living with this disease today--the families who are desperate for assistance and help with a disorder that so often shuts off individuals from the world around them.

The need for this legislation is evident--we continue to see an increasing number of individuals with autism. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released numbers that estimate that one in every 150 children are living with an autism spectrum disorder, numbers that are higher than those released even just a few short years ago. And our service delivery system for individuals with autism is being overwhelmed by this increase. The care involved in treating these symptoms often requires hours of intensive therapy every week--regimens that are often inaccessible to many families.

While we do not know what causes autism, we do know that with early intervention and concentrated treatment, the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder can be mitigated, enabling individuals with autism and their families to live less isolated lives. Our legislation will provide additional treatment and support resources, increasing access to effective therapies and essential support services for people with autism.

This legislation will do the following: Establish a Demonstration Grant Program to Assist States with Service Provision. While the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) is developing a long- term strategy for providing autism care and treatment services, there is currently no effort to plan for improved access to services in the immediate future. The EPIAA would establish a Treatment, Interventions and Services Evaluation Task Force to evaluate evidence-based services that could be implemented by States in the years immediately following enactment. The Secretary would then provide grants to states to help provide the services identified by the Task Force to individuals with autism.

Develop a Demonstration Grant Program for Adult Autism Services. While early diagnosis and treatment are critical for children with autism, the need for intervention and services continues across the lifespan. In order to help address the needs of adults living with autism, the EPIAA would establish a grant program for states to provide appropriate interventions and services, such as housing or vocational training, to adults with autism.

Increase Access to Services Following Diagnosis. After receiving a diagnosis of autism, many children and families must wait months before gaining access to appropriate treatment. In order to improve the ability to access a minimum level of services during this post- diagnosis period, the EPIAA would mandate that the Secretary develop guidance and provide funding to eliminate delays in access to supplementary health care, behavioral support services, and individual and family-support services.

Increase Support for Developmental Disabilities Centers of Excellence. Many families report difficulties in accessing services because of the limited number of health and education professionals who are trained to provide autism-specific services. In order to increase the number of individuals across sectors that can provide adequate care and treatment services for individuals living with autism, the EPIAA would increase the capacity of University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (UCEDDS) to train professionals in meeting the treatment, interventions and service needs of both children and adults living with autism.

Improve Protection and Advocacy Services. Early statistics from 2006 indicate that a quarter of individuals served under already-existing protection and advocacy programs are individuals with autism, a 6 percent increase from the previous year, yet thousands of individuals with autism are unable to access these services due to a lack of resources. The EPIAA will create a program to expand currently existing protection and advocacy services to assist individuals with autism and other emerging populations of individuals with disabilities.

Improves Technical Assistance and Evaluation. The EPIAA would establish a National Technical Assistance Center for Autism Treatments, Interventions and Services to act as a clearinghouse for information about evidence-based treatments, interventions and services, and analyze the grant programs under this Act.

The organizations supporting this legislation include Autism Speaks, the Autism Society of America, Easter Seals, the Association of University Centers for Disability, the Disability Policy Collaboration, and the National Disability Rights Network, and I have included their letters of support to be printed in the Record.

I look forward to working with Senator Allard and all of our colleagues to pass this legislation and help people with autism get the services they need.