|
Off-site Links To Legislation and Other Information |
THOMAS.gov Bill Data--The Library of Congress |
Non-partisan Budget & Spending Information |
The White House |
National and International Resources We Use |
Does Your Opinion Match the Polls? |
|
Legislation News & Report (TM) TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Managing America: Education |
|||||||||||||||
|
TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Week Ending July 13, 2006
H.R.2669
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. {The College Cost Reduction
Act} The bill represents a $19 billion dollar reduction in spending for educational programs by cutting lender subsidies and then invests $18.25 billion in programs that increase grant amounts to students, improve access to student loans, cut interest rates on student loans, provides for repayment of parts of the loans through employment or service in areas of national need, rewards colleges for lowering costs to the students and improving the quality of education and attempts to increase minority participation in secondary education. The $750 million difference is mandated by the FY 2008 budget requiring a deficit reduction of that amount.
Student Aid Pell Grants are authorized at $840 million in FY 2008 and rising to $2.6 billion in 2017.
Individual grant amounts are bumped by $200 per year through 2010, 300 per year through 2011 and $500 per year through 2012 and thereafter.
Maximum grant amounts per student are $7,600 through 2009, $8600 through 2010, $9600 through 2011, $10600 through 2012 and $11,600 through 2013. Year round grants for accelerated study are limited to two per year.
Working students can receive support of $3750 for 2010 rising to $6000 through 2013. The amount is higher by about $600 per year for independent students without dependents other than a spouse. Means testing for grants is to be simplified and the income threshold is raised from $20,000 to $30,000.
Affordable student loans Interest rates on education loans granted after July 1, 2006 are set at 6.8% on the principal balance. The rate is raised to 6.12% on July 1, 2008, dropped to 5.44% on July1, 2009, further to 4.76% on Jyl1 2010, 4.08% on July1 2011, and 4.4% on July 1, 2012. In 2013 the rate would return to 6.8%.
Federal insurance on student loans is raised from $5,500 to $7,500 with an aggregate cap raised from $23,000 to $30,500 for undergrads and from $65,500 to $73,000 for graduate students. Guarantee limits are also raised accordingly effective July 1, 2008.
Allowances to lenders, that area where the lenders can profit on the difference between the cost of the loaned money and the interest charged is reduced to 1.79%. 95% of the unpaid balance of a loans made by lenders is insured by the Federal government, a reduction from 97%.
Collection fees are lowered from 23% to16% of the amount collected.
Fees paid by lenders to the government for administering the program are increased slightly from .5% to 1% on new loans. Non-profit and small lenders are exempt from the fee.
Repayment by service can be accomplished by service in an area of national need as long as there is no default on the loan before service. The employer may take over service of the loan or the loan may be cancelled depending on service. Early childhood educators in low-income communities, nurses, foreign language specialists, Librarians, highly qualified bi-lingual teachers, child welfare workers, speech and language pathologists, national service, public sector employment (police fire, etcetera) can be forgiven the education loan dept to $1000 yearly for five years.
Income and financial hardship and post-active duty status can also be taken into consideration regarding loan repayment.
Reducing the cost of college No State shall reduce the total amount it provides for public institutions of higher education for any academic year beginning on or after July 1, 2008, to an amount which is less than the average amount provided during the 5 most recent preceding academic years.
Colleges that do not participate can be fined up to $25,000. Colleges that have a net cost lower than the preceding year can receive a 25% increase to Pell Grant recipients attending that school. Other rewards will incentivized through guaranteed tuition programs.
Consumer Information is to be increased by an online effort called COOL-College Opportunity On-Line on which students can find all necessary information on college costs for colleges. Colleges that do not meet the cost data they provide will be ticketed as on ‘affordability alert.’
Cooperative education institutions alternate periods of study with periods of employment. Those institutions will be rewarded with increased grants and public-private partnerships are encouraged with a 2 to 1 match for public and private funds sustaining the effort.
Highly qualified teachers A program is established to provide grants to institutions for payment to students pursuing a teaching career. The funds can be used to pay student tuition and fees and housing, room and board. Students must maintain a 3.25 grade average in the first year and must meet other criteria to qualify. Qualified applicants can benefit from loan tuition assistance up to $4,000 per year. Institution can become centers of excellence for Native-American, Hawaiian and Alaskan serving populations.
Increasing college access Investing in Historically Black and minority Colleges takes the form of grants to those institutions to increase enrollment particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics as well as physical sciences, computer sciences and information technology. Challenge grants are made through which philanthropic organizations may increase the number of underserved students in colleges.
Distance education Distance education programs will be identified and evaluated.
SENATE ACTION The Senate approved the bill but substituted text to provide for additional grant activity. Students with the greatest need can be awarded a cost of attendance grant based on need minus the expected family contribution and any Pell Grant amounts already awarded. The principal behind the program is to supplement other grant and aid programs not cause those other awards to be supplanted. The substitute include provisions in the underlying bill.
Any grant funds not awarded, in excess of 15% of the total grant funds available can be carried over to the next grant-making year. The substitute also increases amounts available for grants through the next five years as such: $2,620,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; $3,040,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; $3,460,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; $3,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; $4,020,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and $3,200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2017.
Deferment of payments in the underlying bill are increased, mostly from three to six years for FISL, interest subsidies, direct and Perkin's loans.
Loan forgiveness for students who go into certain fields of employment such as nursing or public service are fine tuned in the substitute to provide for conditions under which the loans can be forgiven. The conditions include regular payments under either the standard repayment plan or the plan that bases payment amounts on income but were modified due to the insight that loss of employment or other factors that could affect the borrowers ability to repay could then affect the criteria qualifying for the forgiveness. The student, to qualify must be making under $65,000 annually.
The provision in the underlying bill that would reduce from 23% to 16%, the amount a collection agency could earn on the amount collected is raised to 24% on funds collected between 2003 and September 2007 but is then dropped to 16% thereafter.
Because the bill allows funds granted to states to be transferred to non-profit organizations that promote a better understanding and access to student loans and grants, the substitute requires that the non-profit recipient has been in existence before the bill is enacted and is operating offering information, assistance and other required activities.
An amendment returned to the application, the requirement that an applicant be asked if he or she has been convicted of a drug related crime. Sponsor: Rep. George Miler (D-CA-7th) Vote: A motion to recommit the bill with instruction failed 199 to 223 (RC 612). The bill passed with a vote of 273 to 149 (RC 613 ) The Senate passed the bill amended by a vote of 78 to 18 RV 272 on July 20, 2007. The bill then moved to the House/Senate Conference Committee. The Senate Agreed to the Conference Report 79 to 12 RV 326 September 7, 2007. The House then agreed to the Conference Report 292 to 97 RC 864.
The Motion to Recommit the bill with instructions aimed to return the bill to committee due to that the loan forgiveness could be extended to those who enter public office or to lobbyists. Specifically "a borrower who is a full-time elected public official who receives compensation for such elected position, or who is a registered lobbyist at either the Federal or State level who receives compensation for lobbying activities, shall be ineligible for any of the loan forgiveness programs included in the bill."
The Majority held that it would address those concerns upon written notification from the Minority. The Majority held further that the wording of the motion required that the bill be returned to committee and reported back to the House 'promptly' rather than 'forthwith', The Majority held that the wording would 'kill' the bill. The definitions of 'promptly' and 'forthwith' describe how quickly the bill would be returned. 'Promptly', the Majority held, could stall the bill's final vote. the Motion failed 199 to 223 (RC 612)
Cost to the taxpayers: “CBO estimates that net effects of (changes to the loan programs) would reduce direct spending by $1.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $0.9 billion over the 2008-2017 period. Implementing the bill also would affect discretionary spending, primarily by increasing Pell grants. Assuming the appropriation of the necessary funds, those discretionary costs would total about $158 billion over the 2008-2012 period.” Earmark Certification: H.R. 2669 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI of the House of Representatives. ## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
MORE INFORMATION
Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA-25th): Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. (Revised) The amendment reduces subsidies in the loan programs and invests the majority of the savings in the Pell Grant program by providing increases of $350 in 2008 and $100 each year thereafter. It also provides a plan for improved consumer information and public accountability with respect to college costs. the amendment was not agreed to by a vote of 189 to 231 (RC 611)
MINORITY VIEWSRepublican Members of the Committee on Education and Labor are committed to ensuring that every child in America is afforded the highest quality education possible. We also remain committed to the principle of a balanced budget without raising taxes. A balanced budget can be obtained by supporting pro-growth economic policies, restraining excessive entitlement spending, and ensuring programs are working as efficiently as possible--Committee Republicans have supported all of these proposals. While Committee Republicans appreciated the ability to contribute and improve the final bill, we strongly disagree with the abuse of the reconciliation process, the level of cuts that were included in the final bill and the significant amount of new entitlement spending that is not focused on increasing access to higher education for low-income students. In addition, we strongly object to the shift in focus of entitlement spending away from individuals to institutions of higher education that have failed to control excessive tuition increases thereby causing the most harm to the exact students this bill should be supporting. THE ABUSE OF THE RECONCILIATION PROCESSCommittee Republicans reject the idea that the reconciliation process should be used to overhaul the student loan programs in a manner that could not pass under regular order and that results in an unprecedented expansion of entitlement spending coupled with minimal deficit reduction. Under Republican leadership, the Committee established a strong record on matters of deficit reduction. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 budget, the then-Education & the Workforce Committee was tasked with finding more than $12 billion in budget savings over five years--the second highest total of any House Committee. Not only did we find those savings through slashing costly subsidies to student loan lenders, but we also found nearly eight billion dollars in additional savings, which we translated into new and expanded benefits for ALL college students. In short, reconciliation served its deficit reduction purpose--and then some. The reconciliation bill in this Congress only produced $750 million for deficit reduction. The Committee, under the reconciliation process in the 109th Congress, made $20 billion worth of changes to the student loan programs that eliminated wasteful federal subsidies and reduced the potential for fraud and abuse in the programs. For example, the Committee permanently prohibited the creation of new loans through certain tax-exempt bonds issued from 1980-1993 that guarantee a 9.5 percent yield to lenders. The Committee also increased risk sharing on the part of private lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program by decreasing the percentage that a lender will receive when a borrower defaults on a student loan. Finally, the Committee supported a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) that moved the administrative portion of the section 458 account from a mandatory spending account to a discretionary spending account. The billions in savings to the American taxpayer were achieved at the same time the Committee expanded benefits for ALL students and made changes that ensured students would be able to pay for their college education. Building upon the President's FY 2006 budget request the Committee, under Republican leadership, expanded loan limits for first year, second year, and graduate students. For the first time ever, graduate students would be able to access Federal PLUS loans, which permit borrowers to borrow up to the cost of attendance. In addition, the Committee reduced fees paid by students from up to four percent to just one percent over the five year period. While making it clear that decisions over school curricula are best made by State and local authorities, the Committee also included a program to provide additional grant funds to Pell-eligible, high achieving college students. The Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program provides first year college students who completed a rigorous high school curriculum at a public or private high school an extra $750 in grant aid; second year college students who completed a rigorous high school curriculum at a public or private high school receive $1,300 in additional grant aid. The National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grants of up to $4,000 go to third and fourth year students who are majoring in math, science, or certain foreign languages. Finally, the Deficit Reduction Act included a provision to make permanent provisions included in the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004 that would more than triple the amount of student loan forgiveness available to highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers. The increase from $5,000 to $17,500 in loan forgiveness for these qualified educators was based on a proposal from President Bush's FY 2005 budget request. The changes made last Congress resulted in more financial aid being available to students today than at any time in history. In sum, under Republican leadership, the Committee used the reconciliation process for the purpose it was intended--to reduce the federal deficit. Unfortunately, the Committee, under Democrat leadership, has subverted the original intent of the reconciliation process and abused the process to shield the billions of new entitlement spending included in the bill. This point is made clear by the fact that the Committee on Education and Labor was the only Committee given a reconciliation instruction in the Budget Resolution. In fact, during the budget debate in the Senate, Budget Committee Chairman Conrad called the House instruction a `stalking-horse for a significant expansion of spending.' The reconciliation process has been clearly abused here. The process was meant for deficit reduction, not as a backdoor way to spend billions of dollars on new programs. NEW ENTITLEMENT SPENDINGThe Democrat-led student loan bill, the College Cost Reduction Act, finds $19 billion in savings within higher education programs over the next five years. In the last Congress, two-thirds of our budget reconciliation savings went towards deficit reduction and one-third went toward increasing student benefits like higher loan limits, more grant aid for low-income, high-achieving students, and loan forgiveness for high-demand teachers. And while this bill does some of the same, it also targets new aid toward those who already have graduated and to institutions of higher education. These are examples of misplaced priorities; student aid is intended to go to students. The bill then spends almost all of the $19 billion on new entitlement spending, including nine new entitlement programs, most of which does not even further the goals of college access and persistence. For example, the bill spends less than one-third of the savings on the Pell Grant program. Instead, the money is spent on assisting those who have already taken advantage of government subsidies and graduated from college and new programs aimed at institutions rather than students. In contrast, the defeated Republican substitute would have spent $12 billion on increasing the Pell Grant. Assuming the House stands behind the maximum Pell Grant award included in the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, this infusion of funds would increase the maximum Pell Grant to $5,050 in the 2008-2009 academic year and raise it to $5,450 by the 2012-2013 academic year. The Republican substitute would have increased the Pell Grant without creating a maze of new rules and regulations for students, parents, and institutions to navigate. The most expensive provision in the bill reduces interest rates for a subsection of borrowers--individuals that received subsidized loans for their undergraduate education. The interest rate is slowly phased down to 3.4 percent for a five year period. The 3.4 percent is only in effect for one year before it jumps back up to 6.8 percent. Democrats claim that a typical borrower would save $4,400 over the life of the loan due to the interest rate cut. It is impossible for a borrower to save that much under this bill. In order to save the full $4,400, the 3.4 percent rate must stay in effect for years at a time--and they must consolidate their loans and stretch out repayment over 15 years. In reality, a college freshman in the fall of 2012--when the rate is at 3.4 percent--would only end up saving $6.42 per month once he or she begins repaying the student loan. Worse yet, these new benefits would not be aimed at a single college student. By definition, they are intended for those already have graduated from college. Republicans, in contrast, believe benefits should be aimed squarely at those attending or hoping to attend college. The bill also establishes another repayment program for borrowers, costing almost $1 billion to U.S. taxpayers. This proposal caps a borrower's monthly repayment amount at 15 percent of the borrower's discretionary income. The student loan programs already have four different repayment options and the ability to enter into deferment or forbearance during times of financial distress. Borrowers are able to switch between plans to ensure that they are repaying their loans in a manner that suits their current financial situation. A new repayment plan will only add confusion and complication to an already complex program. Finally, the bill spends over $1.6 billion of new entitlement spending in providing aid to institutions without the accountability provided by the annual appropriations process. This represents a major policy shift in how mandatory funds are spent. The federal government historically reserves entitlement funding streams for programs that provide a direct benefit to an individual--such as a Social Security check, Medicare benefit, or a student loan. These benefits are portable and can be used by the individual wherever they live or to purchase services. The creation of new entitlement spending to an institution of higher education takes the spending of taxpayer dollars outside the purview and oversight conducted by the Appropriations Committee and a steady flow of funds goes to institutions regardless of the need or the quality of the program that is being funded. The country's debt is already fueled primarily by the skyrocketing growth in entitlement spending. If this growth in spending continues, it will be more difficult for future generations to continue to enjoy the same standard of living that we enjoy today. LEVEL OF CUTSThe reconciliation bill voted on in Committee threatens the stability of the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. Just last Congress, the Committee cut approximately $20 billion from the student loan program in the DRA. Just two short years later, the Committee, under Democrat leadership, is cutting an additional $19 billion from the FFEL program. The Committee took this action without even allowing enough time to pass to analyze the impact of the changes that took place in the DRA. Not one hearing has taken place on the impact of the DRA from last Congress or on the impact of additional cuts proposed in this legislation. In addition, the bill was only introduced one day prior to the markup, leaving very little time for Members and others to understand the true impact of the cuts. Republicans believe that the private-market student loan program can withstand the level of the cuts included in the DRA, even though that substantial reduction in subsidies paid to student loan providers participating in the FFEL program could lead to some reduced access to loans. However, additional cuts to student loan providers should have been more carefully studied if the Committee intended to ensure a viable FFEL program for students and institutions of higher education across the country who count on the FFEL program for their student loans. A more reasonable alternative would have been to accept the Republican substitute. This bill would have trimmed the subsidies provided to student loan providers in the FFEL program while maintaining the stability of the program, thereby ensuring that competition between the FFEL program and the government-run Direct Loan program continues in the future. Specifically, the Republican substitute would have adopted the same cut to lender insurance rates, saved the federal government $11 billion through lower special allowance payments, and saved $2.8 billion through restructuring the manner in which guaranty agencies are reimbursed for their administrative and collection activities. One additional area that provides several Republicans with some concern is the amendment offered during the markup to require a study of market mechanisms that could then be used to determine lender returns when making student loans. The study would specifically look at the use of auctions and provide for a test of the most promising models. The Department of Education did a market mechanisms study several years ago with the Government Accountability Office and others which did not find auctions to be a workable mechanism for administering the student loan program. While another look at the issue may shed new light on the subject, we should not assume that a new study will necessarily result in a different determination. An auction system may further complicate the federal student loan programs, particularly for institutions. In addition, under an auction system students lose their right to choose a lender, something Republicans have been fighting to protect in many of the proposals that have been introduced in the past. If students have no right to pick their lender, competition in the student loan program and the benefits that competition brings are lost altogether. CONCLUSIONCommittee Republicans appreciated the inclusive
nature of the process that went into developing this bill and hope that
the Committee can work together as this legislation moves to the House
Floor. However, Republicans continue to have major concerns about the use
of the reconciliation process to legislate significant cuts to the FFEL
program and extravagant new entitlement spending. Had this legislation
taken a more reasonable approach to reducing subsidies and spending more
of the money saved on actual students, rather than college graduates and
institutions, there may well have been a different result. The cuts made
in this bill threaten the stability of the FFEL program, a program that
has been successful, competitive and is the program of choice for almost
80 percent of student loan borrowers in this country. Committee
Republicans fear that this bill, if left unchanged, will force smaller
lenders out of the business, reduce competition, and eliminate student
benefits. Students should be the main focus of the student aid proposals
the Committee puts forward, but in the end, they will lose if this bill is
passed in its current form. It is our hope that serving students and
ensuring the stability of both of the student loan programs is the goal of
the bill as it moves to the House Floor. AMENDMENTS 1.
H.AMDT.491 to
H.R.2669
An amendment consisting of the new text reported by the Committee on
Education and Labor currently printed in the bill and made in order as
original text for the purpose of further amendment pursuant to the
provisions of H. Res. 531. 2.
H.AMDT.492 to
H.R.2669
An amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of House
Report 110-224 to reduce subsidies in the loan programs and invests the
majority of the savings in the Pell Grant program by providing increases
of $350 in 2008 and $100 each year thereafter. It also provides a plan for
improved consumer information and public accountability with respect to
college costs. 3.
S.AMDT.2314 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 4.
S.AMDT.2327 to
H.R.2669
In the nature of a substitute. 5.
S.AMDT.2329 to
H.R.2669
To increase the amount appropriated for the college access partnership
grant program.
``from
$25,000,000'' to ``$113,000,000'' 6.
S.AMDT.2330 to
H.R.2669
To amend the amounts appropriated for Promise Grants for fiscal years 2014
through 2017. Increases amounts available to $3,650,000,000 for fiscal
year 2014; $3,850,000,000 for fiscal year 2015; $4,175,000,000 for
fiscal year 2016; and $4,180,000,000 for fiscal year 2017. 7.
S.AMDT.2331 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 8.
S.AMDT.2332 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 9.
S.AMDT.2333 to
H.R.2669
To strike the provisions relating to loan forgiveness for public service
employees. 10.
S.AMDT.2334 to
H.R.2669
To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from re-promulgating the
fairness doctrine. 11.
S.AMDT.2337 to
H.R.2669
To amend the special allowance payments. 12.
S.AMDT.2338 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 13.
S.AMDT.2339 to
H.R.2669
To provide interim relief for shortages in employment-based visas for
aliens with extraordinary ability and advanced degrees and for nurses. 14.
S.AMDT.2340 to
H.R.2669
To provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious behavior and
response. 15.
S.AMDT.2341 to
H.R.2669
Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable
suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered
activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability
under Federal, State, and local law for such report. 16.
S.AMDT.2342 to
H.R.2669
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow personal exemptions
under the individual alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes. 17.
S.AMDT.2343 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 18.
S.AMDT.2344 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 19.
S.AMDT.2345 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 20.
S.AMDT.2346 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 21.
S.AMDT.2347 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 22.
S.AMDT.2348 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 23.
S.AMDT.2349 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 24.
S.AMDT.2350 to
H.R.2669
To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting
in person to present photo identification. 25. S.AMDT.2351 to H.R.2669 To express the sense of the Senate on the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Senate makes the following findings: (1) During the War on Terror, senior members of al Qaeda have been captured by the United States military and intelligence personnel and their allies. (2) Many such senior members of al Qaeda have since been transferred to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (3) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo Bay include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which killed approximately 3,000 innocent people. (4) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo Bay also include Majid Khan, who was tasked to develop plans to poison water reservoirs inside the United States, was responsible for conducting a study on the feasibility of a potential gas station bombing campaign inside the United States, and was integral in recommending Iyman Farris, who plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, to be an operative for al Qaeda inside the United States. (5) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo Bay also include Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was an al Qaeda operations chief for the Arabian Peninsula and who, at the request of Osama bin Laden, orchestrated the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, which killed 17 United States sailors. (6) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo Bay also include Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who played a major role in the East African Embassy Bombings, which killed more than 250 people. (7) The Department of Defense has estimated that of the approximately 415 detainees who have been released or transferred from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, at least 29 have subsequently taken up arms against the United States and its allies. (8) Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, said in his 1998 fatwa against the United States, that ``[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it''. (9) In the same fatwa, bin Laden said, ``[w]e--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it''. (10) It is safer for American citizens if captured members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not housed on American soil where they could more easily carry out their mission to kill innocent civilians. (b) Sense of Senate.--It
is the sense of the Senate that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
including senior members of al Qaeda, should not be released into American
society, nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in
American communities and neighborhoods. 26.
S.AMDT.2352 to
H.R.2669
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure the right of employees
to a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board. 27.
S.AMDT.2353 to
H.R.2669
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual
alternative minimum tax. 28.
S.AMDT.2354 to
H.R.2669
Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for
consideration. See Congressional Record for text. 29.
S.AMDT.2355 to
H.R.2669
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the
integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that individuals are
not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful
activity. 30. S.AMDT.2356 to H.R.2669 Relative to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Since I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby previously served as Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney; Since Mr. Libby was convicted in Federal court of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with efforts by the Bush White House to conceal the fact that Administration officials leaked the name of a covert CIA agent in order to discredit her husband, a critic of the Iraq War; Since U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Mr. Libby to 30 months in prison to reflect the seriousness of the offense, the sensitivity of the national security information involved in Libby's crime, and the abuse of Mr. Libby's position of trust in the United States government; Since President Bush chose to commute Mr. Libby's prison sentence in its entirety, thereby entitling Libby to evade serious punishment for his criminal conduct; Since President Bush has refused to rule out the possibility that he will eventually issue a full pardon to Mr. Libby with respect to his criminal conviction; Now therefore be it determined, that it is the Sense of the Senate that President Bush should not issue a pardon to I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby. 31. S.AMDT.2357 to H.R.2669 Relative to former President William Jefferson Clinton. eploring the actions of former President William Jefferson Clinton regarding his granting of clemency to terrorists, to family members, donors, and individuals represented by family members, to public officials of his own political party, and to officials who violated laws protecting United States intelligence, and concluding that such actions by former President Clinton were inappropriate. Since the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN) is a terrorist organization that claims responsibility for the bombings of approximately 130 civilian, political, and military sites throughout the United States, and whereas, on August 11, 1999, President Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 terrorists, all of whom were members of the FALN, and whereas this action was taken counter to the recommendation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and two United States Attorneys; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton commuted the sentence of Susan L. Rosenberg, a former member of the Weather Underground Organization terrorist group whose mission included the violent overthrow of the United States Government, who was charged in a robbery that left a security guard and 2 police officers dead; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton commuted the sentence of Linda Sue Evans, a former member of the Weather Underground Organization terrorist group, who made false statements and used false identification to illegally purchase firearms that were then used by Susan L. Rosenberg in a robbery that left a security guard and 2 police officers dead; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned Patricia Hearst Shaw, a former member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a domestic terrorist group which also advocated the violent overthrow of the United States, and that carried out violent attacks in the United States; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and of distribution of cocaine; Since, on March 15, 2000, former President Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who had been convicted of conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds and to make false statements and who, according to news reports, were represented by the former President's brother-in-law, Tony Rodham; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton commuted the sentence of Carlos Vignali, a convicted cocaine trafficker who, according to news reports, was represented by the former President's brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned Almon Glenn Braswell, an individual convicted of money laundering and tax evasion, who according to news reports, was represented by former President's brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham; Since, on December 22, 2000, former President Clinton pardoned former Democratic Representative Dan Rostenkowski, who had been convicted of mail fraud; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton commuted the sentence of convicted sex offender and former Democratic Representative Mel Reynolds, who had been found guilty of bank fraud, wire fraud, making false statements to a financial institution, conspiracy to defraud the Federal Elections Commission, and making false statements to a Federal official; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned his former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, who had been convicted of making false statements about payments to his mistress; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal, who had been a key figure in the Whitewater investigation and who had been convicted of aiding and abetting, in making false statements, and who refused to testify against the former President in the investigation; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned Christopher Wade, who was a real estate salesmen involved in the Whitewater matter; Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned his former Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch for his mishandling of national security secrets; and Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a former Navy intelligence analyst who was convicted on espionage charges: Now, therefore, be it determined that it is the sense of the Senate that (1) former President Clinton's granting of clemency to 16 FALN terrorists, two former members of the Weather Underground Organization, and a former member of the Symbionese Liberation Army was inappropriate; (2) former President Clinton's granting of clemency to individuals either in his family or represented by family members was inappropriate; (3) former President Clinton's granting of clemency to public figures from his own political party was inappropriate; (4) former President Clinton's pardons of individuals involved with the Whitewater investigation, a matter in which the former First Family was centrally involved, was inappropriate; and (5) former President Clinton's pardons of individuals who have jeopardized intelligence gathering and operations was inappropriate. 32. S.AMDT.2358 to H.R.2669 Relative to illegal aliens qualifying for Social Security benefits.
Sponsor:
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] (introduced 7/19/2007) Cosponsors
(None) 33.
S.AMDT.2359 to
H.R.2669
To protect innocent children. 34.
S.AMDT.2360 to
H.R.2669
To discourage drug use among college students. Requires disclosure of
convictions for drug use by loan applicants in the application. 35.
S.AMDT.2361 to
H.R.2669
A sense of the Senate relative to tax policy. 36.
S.AMDT.2362 to
H.R.2669
To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and
adoption assistance programs. 37.
S.AMDT.2363 to
H.R.2669
A sense of the Senate relative to the adoption tax credit 38.
S.AMDT.2364 to
H.R.2669
A sense of the Senate relative to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
|
|
||||||||||||||
