Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year.

Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system.

The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer.

The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes.

We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class.

We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it.

The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not.

We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income.

Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests.

Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education.

I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their

income in State and local taxes, while the wealthier pay only about 5 percent.

Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break.

The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit.

I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do?

If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this.

I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system.

I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America.

It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially.

I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor.

I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way.

I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days.

There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission.

But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead.

That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork.

So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again.

The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort.

I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better.

I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood

Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill.

This bill seeks to remove roadblocks to the implementation of 1988 legislation that requires the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. Enactment of this bill is necessary so that Redwood Valley can obtain a reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project which supplied water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, CA. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million contributed to the financing of this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The projected water use in the original feasibility study, developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau, was seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise necessary revenues was compromised by a judicially imposed moratorium on new hook-ups; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's potential water supply allotment by 33 percent.

As a result, in 1988 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 which indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the loans. This loan renegotiation has yet to take place and now the District finds that its water supply is highly uncertain.

In 2000 in a report on Redwood Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation recognized these changed conditions, and concluded that the District needs a reliable water supply before it can solve its current financial dilemma.

The District recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could prove a reliable water source. No government funds will be sought for these projects. The District intends to rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to the repayment of the new loans.

The existing loans are an impediment to the District's attempts to upgrade elements of its existing plant. As an example, the District unsuccessfully sought private financing to build a 100 kW solar panel project. This project would have enabled the District to cut its energy costs and to qualify for energy rebates.

Significantly, this legislation requires the District to repay to the United States the currently suspended loans once the District's new loans have been paid.

The only difference between this bill and S. 3189, which I introduced last year, is to clarify that no renegotiations are required to trigger the District's obligations to repay the loans and the Secretary of Interior ``shall reschedule the payments due'' once the District has satisfied its additional financial obligations.

The proposed water projects will enable the District to generate adequate revenues to allow the District to repay both its new private loans and its original loans from the United States. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, this legislation creates a win-win solution for taxpayers of the United States and the rate payers of the Redwood Valley County Water District.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress that would bring all electronic surveillance of terrorists under the color of law and would modernize the rules for conducting such surveillance. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has co- sponsored this legislation.

We all agree that the President and the Intelligence Community should have all the tools they need to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools can and should be used in a way that protects the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans. That is the balance that this legislation attempts to strike.

Nowhere is this more at issue than in electronic surveillance, where government officials record the content of Americans' phone and electronic communications. This important means of obtaining critical counterterrorism information is at the same time a significant, constitutionally recognized intrusion into Americans' privacy rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves of this. We have recently focused on the use of National Security Letters, through which the FBI inappropriately obtained telephone records of at least hundreds of Americans. Electronic surveillance goes far beyond records and collects the actual content--the words spoken over the phone or typed in email.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of why this legislation is necessary, as it has been several months before this was the top legislative issue before the Senate.

For more than five years since September 11, 2001, the National Security Agency collected the content of calls from or to United States persons--citizens and permanent residents--without a court order as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

This surveillance was done without notifying and seeking authorization from the congressional intelligence committees. The President and Vice President have very closely restricted disclosure of information about what they call the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program.''

Until this surveillance came to light through an article in The New York Times in December 2005, only eight members of Congress were briefed on it. Even after the article came out, the White House refused to brief the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees for several months.

Even now, the Intelligence Committee does not have all the information it needs to carry out its Constitutional oversight duties.

Throughout 2006, the Judiciary Committee debated various bills to authorize or prohibit electronic surveillance outside of FISA. The bill that Senator Specter and I authored last year, which is being re- introduced today, was reported out of Judiciary on a bipartisan vote on September 13, 2006. The Senate, however, took no legislative action prior to adjournment.

Then, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notified the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since January, the program has proceeded

under Court supervision, as is required by FISA.

I was pleased that the Administration submitted the TSP to the FISA Court, and that the Court had found a way to issue an order approving this surveillance. I was pleased, but not surprised.

I had maintained throughout the legislative debate last year that it would not take many changes for the TSP to fit under the confines of FISA. All it took was the willingness of the Administration to follow legal process.

Members may ask, given the recent developments, why legislation is now necessary. There are two reasons.

The first is that the Senate should enact this bill is because this Administration has never conceded the point that it cannot conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law. It has put the TSP under FISA Court review, but it asserts that it has the right not to do so. Future Administrations, if not enjoined, may take the same view.

I disagree with this legal analysis.

Secondly, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the FBI, and the Attorney General have said on many occasions that FISA is outdated and in need of modernization. The current FISA process is too bureaucratic, too slow to initiate electronic surveillance from the time a suspected terrorist's phone or email account is identified.

This bill addresses those concerns by providing new flexibility and additional resources to speed the FISA process and allow for the more timely collection of valuable intelligence.

Allow me to summarize the legislation. The bill: re-iterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Specifies that FISA's requirements cannot be written off through contorted interpretations of other statutes. The Administration's tortured argument with respect to the Authorization for the 2001 Use of Military Force (AUMF) notwithstanding, this legislation would specify that FISA's language can only be undone by a specific and direct Act of Congress.

Requires that Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, be fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and any related surveillance programs.

Requires the Supreme Court to review, on an expedited basis, the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Streamlines the current ``emergency procedures'' in FISA. Currently, the Attorney General can authorize surveillance prior to a Court order for 72 hours in an emergency. This legislation would extend the time to one week, which should remove any doubt as to whether Court approval can be sought and obtained in time. The bill also allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to initiate electronic surveillance in an emergency to specific supervisory officials at the NSA and FBI.

Authorizes additional personnel to expedite the writing, submission, and review of FISA applications. Specifically, additional FISA Court judges and staff are authorized, as are additional positions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and NSA.

Extends the existing FISA authority--for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war--to any 30-day period following an authorization for the use of military force or a national emergency following a terrorist attack.

Allows the National Security Agency to take full advantage of its capabilities to collect intelligence on foreign communications.

While foreign-to-foreign communications are not covered now by FISA's requirements, the NSA can only conduct surveillance on these calls if it can be sure, in advance, that a telephone call of email won't transit the United States or unexpectedly end here. In the age of cell phones and the global telecommunications system, this a priori certification is very difficult to make. This legislation therefore specifies that in such inadvertent collection cases, the NSA must minimize the data, but that it has not violated the law.

Finally, the legislation clarifies that FISA court orders for electronic surveillance must be individualized to a particular target that the government has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

From the briefings I have received as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the hearings held in Judiciary, I am convinced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an important anti-terrorism tool that should be continued.

It is also clear from the January FISA Court ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program can be conducted within the confines of FISA. It is appropriate now for Congress to re-iterate that this is the appropriate arrangement.

This is by no means an issue that has been overtaken by events. The Administration continues to support a view of plenary authority in which it can conduct electronic surveillance in violation of FISA. The NSA and the FBI continue to labor under a process that was formed 29 years ago, prior to fundamental changes in the telecommunications system.

I urge the Senate to act to ensure that the law is followed and privacy rights upheld, and to provide the Intelligence Community the tools it needs to continue to make us safe.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Grassley, Durbin and Collins in re-introducing the Restitution for Victims of Crime Act. This legislation will give Justice Department officials the tools they say are needed to help them do a better job of collecting court-ordered Federal restitution and fines. It is virtually identical to the bill we introduced in June of last year.

Recent information from the Justice Department suggests the many victims of crime and their families continue to face a significant challenge in trying to recover a sense of emotional and financial security after a crime has been perpetrated against them.

By law, victims of Federal crimes are generally entitled to ``full and timely restitution'' for losses from a convicted offender. Unfortunately new Justice Department data show that the amount of uncollected Federal criminal debt is still spiraling upward--jumping from some $41 billion in fiscal year 2005 to nearly $46 billion at the end of fiscal year 2006. This is a hike of some $5 billion in uncollected Federal

criminal debt int he past fiscal year alone. Criminal debt ordered by Federal courts in North Dakota that remained uncollected at the end of fiscal year 2006 totaled $18.7 million, up almost $4 million from the preceding year.

Crime victims should not have to worry if those in charge of collecting court-ordered restitution on their behalf are making every possible effort to do so. We believe that passing the Restitution for Victimis of Crime Act would greatly help Federal criminal justice officials in this task.

Our bill includes provisions that will remove many existing impediments to increased collections. It will also provide new tools to help Federal criminal justice officials prevent criminal defendants from spending or hiding their ill-gotten gains and other financial assets by setting up pre-conviction procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution.

I hope that my Senate colleagues will help us get the legislation enacted at the first available opportunity. This will send a clear and much-needed message to white collar and other criminals: if you commit a crime you will be held accountable and will not be allowed to benefit in any way from your criminal activity and ill-gotten gains. I also believe this bill will reassure many innocent victims of Federal crime that the justice system is working hard to recover court-ordered restitution that is owed to such victims.

I understand that criminal debt collection can be a tough job. It may be impossible to collect the full amount of restitution owed to victims in some cases. Clearly criminal debt collections may be more difficult in cases where convicted criminals are in prison, ill-gotten gains are already gone or these criminals are without any other financial means to pay their full restitution.

However, victims of crime in this country should expect Federal law enforcement officials tasked with collecting outstanding restitution to do a better job. At the very least, crime victims should not be concerned that their prospects for financial restitution are being diminished because criminal offenders are frittering away their ill- gotten gains on lavish lifestyles and the like. But, as I have mentioned before, past Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations rightly give many crime victims real reason to worry. GAO's work made clear that more financial assets could be recovered but for a failure of some criminal justice officials to make criminal debt collection a top priority.

At my request, the GAO reviewed five white-collar financial fraud cases and concluded that the Justice Department's prospects were ``not good for collecting additional restitution from offenders'' owed to the victims--even though one or more of the criminal offenders involved had reported earning millions of dollars in income, having millions in net worth and/or were spending thousands of dollars monthly on entertainment and clothing prior to the judgments entered against them. In addition, the GAO found that certain offenders had taken expensive trips overseas, had fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in assets and converted those assets for personal use, had established businesses for their children, or held homes worth millions of dollars that were located in upscale neighborhoods. Despite all of this reported wealth, GAO found that only a small fraction of court-ordered restitution owed to victims had been collected.

The legislation that Senator Grassley and I are re-introducing today is based on a comprehensive package of recommendations by the Justice Department that stem in large part from the work of the Task Force on Improving the Collection of Criminal Debt. Justice Department officials believe these changes will remove many of the current impediments to better debt collection.

For example, Justice Department officials described a circumstance where they were prevented by a court from accessing $400,000 held in a criminal offender's 401(k) plan to pay a $4 million restitution debt to a victim because that court said the defendant was complying with a $250 minimum monthly payment plan and that payment schedule precluded any other enforcement actions. Our bill would remove impediments like this in the future.

This legislation will address another major problem identified by the GAO for officials in charge of criminal debt collection; that is, many years can pass between the date a crime occurs and the date a court orders restitution. This gives criminal defendants ample opportunity to spend or hide their ill-gotten gains. Our bill sets up pre-conviction procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution. These tools will help ensure that financial assets traceable to a crime are available when a court imposes a final restitution order on behalf of a victim. These tools are similar to those already used successfully in some States and by Federal officials in certain asset forfeiture cases.

Key provisions of the bill would do the following:

Clarify that court-ordered Federal criminal restitution is due immediately in full upon imposition, just like in civil cases and that any payment schedule ordered by a court is only a minimum obligation of a convicted offender.

Allow Federal prosecutors to access financial information about a defendant in the possession of the U.S. Probation Office--without the need for a court order.

Clarify that final restitution orders can be enforced by criminal justice officials through the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.

Ensure that if a court restricts the ability of criminal justice officials to enforce a financial judgment, the court must do so expressly for good cause on the record. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court must require a deposit, the posting of a bond or impose additional restraints upon the defendant from transferring or dissipating assets.

Help ensure better recovery of restitution by requiring a court to enter a pre-conviction restraining order or injunction, require a satisfactory performance bond, or take other action necessary to preserve property that is traceable to the commission of a charged offense or to preserve other nonexempt assets if the court determines that it is in the interest of justice to do so.

Under the bill, a criminal defendant is allowed to challenge a court's pre-judgment asset preservation order. For example, a defendant may challenge a post-indictment restraining order if he or she can show that there is no probable cause to justify the restraint or the order does not provide the accused with adequate resources for attorney fees or reasonable living expenses.

Permit the Attorney General to commence a civil action under the Anti-Fraud Injunction Statute to enjoin a person who is committing or about to commit a Federal offense that may result in a restitution order; and permit a court to restrain the dissipation of assets in any case where it has power to enjoin the commission of a crime, not just banking or health care fraud as permitted under current law.

Allow the United States under the Federal Debt Collections Procedure Act to use prejudgment remedies to preserve assets in criminal cases that are similar to those used in civil cases when it is needed to preserve a defendant's assets for restitution. Such remedies, including attachment, garnishment, and receivership, are not currently available in criminal cases because there is no enforceable debt prior to an offender's conviction and judgment.

Clarify that a victim's attorney fees may be included in restitution orders, including cases where such fees are a foreseeable result from the commission of the crime, are incurred to help recover lost property or expended by a victim to defend against third-party lawsuits resulting from the defendant's crime.

Allow courts at their discretion to order immediate restitution to those that have suffered economic losses or serious bodily injury or death as the result of environmental felonies. Under current law, courts can impose restitution in such cases as a condition of probation or supervised release but this means that many victims of environment crimes must wait for years to be compensated for their losses, if at all.

The Restitution for Victims of Crime Act has previously been endorsed by a number of organizations concerned about the well-being of crime victims, including: The National Center for Victims of Crime, Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, the National Organization for Victims Assistance (NOVA), the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Parents of Murdered Children, Inc., Justice Solutions, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators (NAVAA). Most recently, the National Crime Victim Law Institute shared its support for our bill.

Last year, United States Attorney Drew Wrigley in Fargo, North Dakota said this legislation ``represents important progress toward ensuring that victims of crime are one step closer to being made whole.''

Senator Grassley and I look forward to working with these groups and others to move this bill forward in the legislative process. With the Justice Department's help, we can make criminal debt collection a top priority for all Federal criminal justice officials once again.

Mr. President, today Senator SESSIONS and I are pleased to introduce the Striving Readers Act. This bipartisan bill will help America's middle and high school students gain the literacy skills they need to succeed in school and graduate ready for college and the workplace.

I want to thank Senator Sessions for his work on this issue and for shining a light on his State's success in raising literacy achievement. I also want to thank our original cosponsors Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Dodd, Kerry, Lincoln, Burr, Cochran, Domenici, and Lott for partnering with us. Finally, I offer thanks to our staff, Kathryn Young and Liz Stillwell, who have worked on this bill, and the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals for their work.

Our bill addresses a serious problem. Today 8 million middle and high school

students across the Nation cannot read well enough to succeed in school. This contributes to their likelihood to disengage and drop out. Those that do graduate too often falter when they begin college or work and then need remediation.

All around the country educators and stakeholders are working to improve literacy, and this bill gives us a way to support their efforts. We know that literacy is at the base of every academic subject, and it is crucial to student academic success.

Our bill will engage and reinvigorate those students on the brink of failure. The Striving Readers Act constitutes a comprehensive effort to give States, districts, and schools the resources they need to ensure every student reads and writes well enough to succeed. It would provide grants to every State to develop State literacy initiatives that guide and support districts and schools to improve reading and writing. It would provide grants to districts and schools to assist students who are below grade level and to train teachers in core subjects in literacy strategies for all students. It would also provide new information on what works for struggling readers by conducting evaluations of programs.

This bill could not come at a more important time. In Washington State, 66 percent of 8th graders read below ``Proficient'' on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These students, who are at the bottom in terms of achievement, are more likely to drop out than those at the top. Among this group, minority students' scores are of particular concern. Seventy-three percent of Washington State's African-American students and 85 percent of Hispanic students read below the ``Proficient'' level. These students are falling behind, and they need our support.

I'm pleased to report that my State has made great efforts to remedy the problem of low literacy levels. My State launched the Washington State Reading Initiative in 2003 to provide support to struggling readers in every grade, including middle and high school. Since then, our K-12 Reading Model has attracted national attention as a systematic reform model. Our program includes statewide training for teachers to identify and provide intervention for students at all grade levels. My State trains teachers in all subjects to teach reading strategies to students. And my State provides guidance to teachers and administrators for applying best practices in classrooms. But they should not have to continue these efforts alone.

The challenges we face in Washington are not unique; every State struggles with adolescent literacy. Nationally 71 percent of 8th graders and 65 percent of 12th graders read below grade level. It should not surprise us, then, that only 34 percent of American teenagers graduate with the skills they need to do well in college or in the workforce.

If we are to remain globally competitive, Congress must authorize and fund a significant adolescent literacy investment for every State. The Striving Readers Act would fulfill this need. As a country, we currently only substantially support reading initiatives through the third grade. International comparisons of reading performance placed American 11th graders close to the bottom, behind students from the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other developing nations. The Striving Readers Act will help support these middle and high schoolers and help our Nation raise its literacy levels to compete in a global market.

Students are not the only ones who pay the price for low literacy achievement. With every student who falls behind, our economy suffers. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 53 percent of undergraduates require remediation. One-half of these students required a remedial writing course, and 35 percent took remedial reading. That means community colleges spend $1.4 billion every year catching kids up to where they should have been when they graduated. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports that America's businesses and colleges are spending $16.6 billion each year to teach graduates what they should have learned in middle and high school. This is a costly consequence of failing to intervene in a timely manner. We must not continue to make this mistake at the expense of students' futures.

The good news is that research shows we can help struggling students make progress. For example, research shows that adolescents with lagging literacy skills can master college material if they receive high quality literacy instruction in school. In fact, a recent study by ACT found that students with better literacy skills in high school do better in their math, science, and social studies courses--both in high school and in college. Better literacy is the foundation for improving student achievement in all subjects, lowering dropout rates, and ensuring students do well when they go on to college or the workforce. The Striving Readers bill provides a path for this.

Specifically, the Striving Readers bill would: Help States create statewide literacy initiatives, share data on student progress to parents and the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high quality instruction.

Help districts and schools create plans to improve literacy, including targeted interventions for students way below grade level, top notch assessments for all students, training for teachers in every subject to incorporate literacy strategies, and regular data to improve teaching and learning.

Allow districts and schools to hire and place literacy coaches, train parents to support the literacy development of their child, or connect learning inside the classroom with learning that takes place outside the classroom.

Ensure States, districts, and schools participate in a rigorous evaluation that demonstrates student progress.

Require the Federal Government to complete an overall evaluation of the program to determine its impact on the Nation's middle and high schools.

The Striving Readers Act comprises a necessary and urgent investment in adolescent students. We created the Reading First program to strengthen students' reading skills in the elementary grades. While I do have major concerns with the implementation of this program, the intent of the law and the commitment to elementary reading skills is undoubtedly positive. But with reading proficiency stagnating after 4th grade, it is clear that we need a significant investment in the higher grades as well. In crafting the Striving Readers bill, we took steps to correct and guard against implementation concerns, and I believe that this bill will provide the critical resources, training, and evaluation to implement high quality adolescent literacy initiatives around the country.

I introduced the PASS Act, first in 2003, and in subsequent legislation, to take a comprehensive approach to improving student achievement in our Nation's high schools, including use of literacy and math coaches, as well as research-based support for high schools with the most need. The Striving Readers Act will complement this and allow States and schools to effectively address the literacy needs of adolescents in 4th grade and up.

Now is the time to invest in literacy for older students and make their success a reality. This issue cannot wait any longer. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Sessions and me in supporting the Striving Readers Act. And I hope we will authorize Striving Readers as part of No Child Left Behind so that children in every State have the reading skills they need to succeed in school, college, and the workplace.

Mr. President, today Senator Murray and I are pleased to introduce the Striving Readers Act, for the eight million middle and high school students across this country who are not reading well enough to

succeed in school. I thank Senator Murray for her longstanding leadership on this issue, as well as the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. I also thank my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who have agreed to cosponsor the bill Senator Cochran, Senator Kerry, Senator Lott, Senator Akaka, Senator Burr, Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Lincoln. I thank them for their support and for demonstrating that improving reading and writing in every grade is something we all can get behind.

This important bill will help schools in every State ensure our adolescents read and write well enough to learn in school, graduate on time, and succeed in college and the workplace. Better literacy is the cornerstone to improving student achievement in all subjects, lowering dropout rates, and ensuring students do well when they go on to college or the workforce. A recent study by the American College Testing Program (ACT) found that students with better literacy skills in high school do better in their math, science, and social studies courses both in high school and in college.

The Striving Readers Act marks an important effort to improve reading for the older student. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for the Reading First program available for every State to ensure children read by the third grade. That was an important step, and we have seen 4th grade reading scores rise nationally because of it. However, research shows that many readers who test well in 4th grade do not carry that knowledge into upper grades. We must not risk squandering the investment Congress has already made for younger students.

Seventy percent of our middle and high school students read below grade level. That means we must continue our support for ongoing programs that reflect the needs of the older student for more advanced vocabulary and comprehension skills. All students, throughout their K- 12 educational experience, deserve adequate support to ensure they graduate on time with appropriate skills and knowledge that meet the demands of the 21st century.

To be sure, some problems with the Reading First program have surfaced. Let me assure you that the Striving Readers bill addresses those problems to ensure the law and its implementation are fair, transparent, and driven by research, not special interests. Interestingly, many in my State have told me that the law is good and showing results; the problems have come with poor implementation.

Low literacy skills don't just cost the student; they cost our economy because students don't learn what they should in school. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 53 percent of undergraduates require remediation. One-half of these students required a remedial writing course, and 35 percent took remedial reading. That means community colleges spend $1.4 billion every year catching kids up to where they should have been when they graduated. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports an estimated $16.6 billion in remediation costs to the U.S. economy each year. This means that America's businesses and colleges are spending $16.6 billion teaching high school graduates skills they should have learned in high school.

America's declining competitiveness in the global economy is due in part to sub-par literacy skills. International comparisons of reading performance placed American 11th graders close to the bottom, behind students from the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other developing nations. Our high school graduates continue to lag, as employers move jobs overseas, not for the low-cost labor alone, but also to tap into the highly literate, motivated, and technologically skilled workers that other nations can offer them.

The Striving Readers Act will help our Nation raise its literacy levels and compete in a global arena. We can do this. Research shows that adolescents with lagging literacy skills can master college material if they receive good literacy instruction in school.

Specifically, the Striving Readers bill would do the following:

Help States create statewide literacy initiatives, share data on student progress with parents and the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high quality instruction.

Help districts and schools create plans to improve literacy, including targeted interventions for students far below grade level, top notch assessments for all students, training for teachers in every subject to incorporate literacy strategies, and regular data to improve teaching and learning.

Allow districts and schools to hire and place literacy coaches, train parents to support the literacy development of their child, and connect learning inside the classroom with learning that takes place outside the classroom.

Ensure States, districts, and schools participate in a rigorous evaluation that demonstrates student progress.

Require the Federal Government to complete an overall evaluation of the program to determine its impact on the Nation's middle and high schools.

I am proud to say that my State has been working on this issue for a long time. In 1998 Alabama launched the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), a statewide program designed to ensure every student in grades K to 12 is proficient in reading. We provide ongoing, research-based training to teachers in all subjects so that every educator can help students struggling to read. Fortunately, the Alabama Reading Initiative is now in every elementary school in the State. Unfortunately, fewer middle and high schools have been able to take part, due to limited funding. This is true in other States as well.

For those schools in the program we have seen great gains. ARI schools have made great progress, and those that have had the benefit of additional funding from the Federal Reading First program have shown even more rapid, dramatic gains. Many of you have heard of the outstanding impact of the Alabama Reading Initiative, primarily for younger children. It is time for us to develop new methods to meet the needs of students in the upper grades who are reading and writing below grade level. I applaud Alabama's leadership on this important issue as they work to expand the Alabama Reading Initiative into middle and high schools, and I am honored to offer legislation to promote this effort on the national level. I would like to thank Governor Riley for his commitment to the Alabama Reading Initiative, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell, whose enthusiasm and hard work has made the success of ARI a reality for Alabama's children. Alabama has become a model for the Nation, and I am so proud of the progress they have made.

The Federal Government cannot and should assume the responsibility for education from the States. But we can develop research, supply seed money, and provide leadership to help States make advancements, without unnecessary mandates. We can leverage success in places like Alabama to shine a light for others.

We know that, given the right instruction and opportunity, children can learn to read and write well and use that knowledge to achieve at higher levels of education. I hope that our colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Murray and me in supporting the Striving Readers Act. And I hope we will authorize Striving Readers as part of No Child Left Behind so that children in every State have the reading skills they need to succeed in school, college, and the workplace.