[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3844-S3851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coats, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Abraham, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 667. A bill to empower States with authority for most taxing and
spending for highway programs and mass transit programs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
The TRANSPORTATION EMPOWERMENT ACT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan
legislation which would allow States to keep almost all of their gas
tax revenues for their own transportation projects without interference
from Washington.
The Transportation Empowerment Act--which being re-introduced in the
House by Representative John Kasich--would replace the current law
governing the Federal highways program, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA].
Under ISTEA, Washington currently collects about $25 billion each
year in dedicated transportation taxes, skims money off the top for
demonstration projects, skims more off the top to fund its highway
bureaucracy, runs the remainder through a maze of formulas, and then
returns what's left to the States to fund their transportation
programs.
However, this circle of waste, has shortchanged our Nation's
transportation infrastructure. Today, notwithstanding the tremendous
growth in spending, our Nation's transportation investment backlog is
estimated to be at least $200 billion. This backlog includes the
following deficiencies: 25 percent of our highways are in poor/mediocre
condition; 24 to 28 percent of bridges are structurally deficient/
functionally obsolete; 24 percent of rail transit facilities are in
substandard/poor condition; and 20 to 24 percent of transit buses need
to be replaced.
The fact is that our country is getting less from our transportation
dollars. Part of the reason for this is reflected in the growth of
administrative costs. These costs, as a function of Federal highway
construction dollars, have risen from 7 percent in 1956 to over 21
percent today.
The history of the Federal program has shown us that the current
system [ISTEA] of collecting and distributing gas tax dollars needed by
States to implement their own transportation needs is too inefficient,
too costly, and too bureaucratic. Washington simply can't meet the
challenges facing the Nation's infrastructure.
Simply put: The era of big Government is over. And in this era, the
highway system is a perfect example of a program that ought to be
returned to the States. It's a simple formula for success--less
Washington, more roads. In fact, transportation economists and State
officials estimate that if States weren't hamstrung by Washington's
arcane formulas and mandates, they could get 20 percent more highways
and transit systems for every dollar collected.
I have introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act because I
believe we can better serve our Nation's transportation needs primarily
through State run transportation programs, without Federal
micromanagement and without laundering gas tax dollars through
Washington.
key provisions of the transportation empowerment act
The legislation continues a streamlined ``core'' Federal program.
This core Federal transportation program will include the maintenance
of the current Interstate System, Federal lands programs--Indian
reservation roads, public lands, parkways and park roads--highway
safety programs and emergency disaster relief. Also included is
continued general fund support for transit programs.
The bill authorizes States to establish multistate compacts for
planning, financing, and establishing safety and construction
standards, and encourages innovative approaches on the part of the
States, such as use of infrastructure banks and privitization. The bill
repeals the requirement that States repay Federal grants associated
with transportation infrastructure which is slated for privatization.
The legislation provides a 4-year transition period, beginning in
fiscal year 1998, during which time the existing 14 cents gas tax
dedicated to transportation purposes would remain in place. After
funding the new streamlined core program and paying off outstanding
bills, the remainder is returned to States in a block grant.
At the end of the transition period, beginning in fiscal year 2002,
the Federal gas tax would be reduced to 2 cents--that amount necessary
to fund the core Federal programs.
Under the bill each State would be free to replace the Federal gas
tax and to keep those dollars within the State to use as each sees fit.
The bottom line is this--for far too long Washington has had a
stranglehold on States' transportation needs. It's time for Washington
to let go and re-empower the States to make their own decisions.
More information about the Transportation Empowerment Act is
available via the Internet at www.senate.gov/mack/
tea2.html.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 668. A bill to increase economic benefits to the United States
from the activities of cruise ships visiting Alaska; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
BENEFITS FROM CRUISE SHIPS VISITING ALASKA LEGISLATION
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Today, Mr. President, I am reintroducing a very
important measure--one that will unlock and open a door that Congress
has kept barred for over 100 years.
Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to
hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity, and to
millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues.
Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse
impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest, or on the
environment, and it will cost the Government virtually nothing.
[[Page S3845]]
There's no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. My bill
merely allows U.S. ports to compete for the growing cruise ship trade
to Alaska, and encourages the development of an all-Alaska cruise
business, as well.
The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise
ships to operate from U.S. ports to Alaska, and between Alaska ports.
However, it also very carefully protects all existing U.S. passenger
vessels by using a definition of ``cruise ship'' designed to exclude
any foreign-flag vessels that could conceivably compete in the same
market as U.S.-flag tour boats or ferries. Finally, it provides a
mechanism to guarantee that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in
the future, steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential
passengers.
Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing
problem, and it deserves the support of this body.
Let's look at the facts. U.S. ports currently are precluded from
competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act
of 1886, which bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way
voyages between U.S. ports. However, it isn't 1886 anymore. These days,
no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one
has built one in over 40 years.
Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only
real effect of the Passenger Service Act is to force all the vessels
sailing to Alaska to base their operations in a foreign port instead of
a U.S. city.
Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting
U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs and hundreds of
millions in business dollars. That is worse than absurd--in light of
our ever-popular election-year promises to help the economy, it belongs
in Letterman's ``Top Ten Reasons Why Congress Doesn't Know What It's
Doing.''
How, Mr. President, can anyone argue with a straight face for the
continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable
American interest, while actively discouraging economic growth.
Mr. President, this is not the first time I have introduced this
legislation. When I began, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about
200,000 per year. By last year, 445,000 people--most of them American
citizens--were making that voyage. This year's traffic may exceed
500,000 people. Almost all those passengers are sailing to and from
Vancouver, British Columbia--not because Vancouver is necessarily a
better port, but because our own foolish policy demands it.
The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most passengers
fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington
State, but because of the law, they spend little time there. Instead,
they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, at
Vancouver restaurants and in Vancouver gift shops. And when their
vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel, general supplies, repair and
maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver vendors.
According to some estimates the city of Vancouver receives benefits
of well over $200 million per year. Others provide more modest
estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the International Council
of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992 alone, the Alaska cruise
trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city of Vancouver, plus
payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over $119 million. If
that business had taken place inside the United States, it would have
been worth additional Federal, State and local tax revenues of
approximately $60 million.
In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we
are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and income
through the potential to develop new cruising routes between Alaska
ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that two
relatively small cruise ships were very interested in establishing
short cruises within southeast Alaska. I'm told such a business could
have contributed $2 million or more to that small community's economy,
and created dozens of new jobs. But, because of the current policy, the
opportunity simply evaporated.
Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market
almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United
States most spectacular places, and yet we force them to go to another
country to do it. We are throwing away both money and jobs--and getting
nothing whatsoever in return.
Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not
rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are
those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests. I
submit, Mr. President, that is not the case.
For some inexplicable reason, paranoia runs deep among those who
oppose this bill. They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service
Act so that it makes sense for the United States would create a threat
to Jones Act vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President,
there simply is no connection whatsoever between the two. I have
repeatedly made clear that I have no intention of using this bill to
create cracks in the Jones Act.
This bill would actually enhance--not impede--opportunities for U.S.
workers. Both shipyard workers and longshoremen--not to mention hotel
and restaurant workers and many others--would have a great deal to gain
from this legislation, and the bill has been carefully written to
prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades.
Finally, let me dispose of any suggestion that this bill might harm
smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. The industry featuring these
smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply doesn't cater to the same
client base as large cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats
operating in Alaska are all much smaller. The smallest foreign-flag
vessel eligible under this limit is Carnival Cruise Line's Windstar,
which is a 5,700-ton ship with overnight accomodations for 159
passengers. By contrast, although the largest U.S. vessel in the Alaska
trade is rated to carry 138 passengers, she is less than 100 gross
deadweight tons.
The fact of the matter is that there is no significant competition
between the two types of vessel, because the passengers inclined to one
are not likely to be inclined to the other. The larger vessels offer
unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping,
entertainment, etc. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes and
the ability to get closer to many of Alaska's extraordinary natural
attractions.
In the spirit of full disclosure, Mr. President, let me acknowledge
that there is one operating U.S. vessel that doesn't fit the mold: the
Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawaii. This
is the only ocean-capable U.S. ship that might fit the definition of
``cruise vessel.'' I have searched for other U.S. vessels that meet or
exceed the 5,000-ton limit in the bill, and the only ones I have found
that even approach it are the Delta Queen and the Mississippi Queen,
both of which are approximately 3,360 tons, and both of which are 19th
century-style riverboats that are entirely unsuitable for any open-
ocean itinerary such as the Alaska trade.
Mr. President, I cannot claim that this legislation would immediately
lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say that it would
allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored by a rule that
is actively harmful to U.S. interests. It is, as I said at the
beginning of this statement, only a way to open the door.
We've heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating jobs
during the last few years. But we all know, Mr. President, that such
changes are easier to talk about than they are to accomplish. Well, Mr.
President, here is a bill that opens the door to thousands of jobs and
hundreds of millions of new dollars, and does it without one red cent
of taxpayer money. It's been 110 years since the current law was
enacted, and it's time for a change.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 668
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) It is in the interest of the United States--
[[Page S3846]]
(A) to maximize economic return from the growing trade in
cruise ships sailings to and from Alaska by encouraging the
use of United States labor, supplies, berthing and repair
facilities, and other services, and
(B) to encourage the growth of new enterprises including
the transportation of passengers on luxury cruise ships
between ports in Alaska.
(2) In promoting additional economic benefits to the United
States from the cruise ship industry, there is a need to
ensure that existing employment and economic activity
associated with the Alaska Marine Highway System, United
States-flag tour boats operating from Alaskan ports, and
similar United States enterprises are protected from adverse
impact.
(3) Cruise ship sailings to Alaska comprise a vital and
growing segment of the United States travel industry. Since
1989, the number of tourists coming to Alaska via cruise
ships has increased by 86 percent. With almost 500,000
passengers per year, Alaska has become the third most popular
cruise destination in the world, after the Caribbean and
Europe.
(4) The cruise ship industry is expected to grow at a rate
of 15 percent per year over the next several years. In 1996,
7 new cruise ships having a combined capacity to carry over
13,000 passengers entered the market.
(5) The only United States-flag ocean cruise ship in
service is an aging vessel operating cruises only between the
Hawaiian Islands. No United States-flag cruise ships are
presently available to enter the Alaskan trade. Thus, all
cruise ships carrying passengers to and from Alaskan
destinations are foreign-flag vessels which are precluded,
under current law, from carrying passengers between United
States ports.
(6) The City of Vancouver, British Columbia receives
substantial economic benefit by providing services to cruise
ships in the Alaskan trade. In 1996, there were 487 Alaska-
related voyages, with over 445,000 passengers, up from
389,000 in 1995. Most of the voyages stopped in Vancouver.
Vancouver has benefited from the cruise ship industry through
the direct and indirect employment of almost 2,500 people,
and through revenues from goods and services of approximately
$120,000,000 a year.
(7) The transfer of cruise ship-based economic activity
from Vancouver, British Columbia to United States ports could
yield additional Federal revenues of nearly $100,000,000 a
year and additional State and local government revenues of
approximately $30,000,000.
SEC. 2. FOREIGN-FLAG CRUISE VESSELS.
(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) Cruise vessel.--The term ``cruise vessel'' means a
vessel of greater than 5,000 deadweight tons which provides a
full range of luxury accommodations, entertainment, dining,
and other services for its passengers.
(2) Foreign-flag cruise vessel.--The term ``foreign-flag
cruise vessel'' does not apply to a vessel which--
(A) regularly carries for hire both passengers and vehicles
or other cargo, or
(B) serves residents of their ports of call in Alaska or
other ports in the United States as a common or frequently
used means of transportation between United States ports.
(b) Waiver.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8 of
the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. 289) or any other
provision of law, passengers may be transported in foreign-
flag cruise vessels between ports in Alaska and between ports
in Alaska and other ports on the west coast of the contiguous
States, except as otherwise provided by this section.
(c) Coastwise Trade.--Upon a showing satisfactory to the
Secretary of Transportation, by the owner or charterer of a
United States-flag cruise vessel, that service aboard such
vessel qualified to engage in the coastwise trade is being
offered or advertised pursuant to a Certificate of Financial
Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for
Nonperformance of Transportation (46 App. U.S.C. 817(e)) for
service in the coastwise trade between ports in Alaska or
between ports in Alaska and other ports on the west coast of
the contiguous States, or both, the Secretary shall notify
the owner or charterer of one or more foreign-flag cruise
vessels transporting passengers under authority of this
section, if any, that the Secretary shall, within 1 year from
the date of notification, terminate such service. Coastwise
privileges granted to any owner or charterer of a foreign-
flag cruise vessel under this section shall expire on the
365th day following receipt of the Secretary's notification.
(d) Notification.--Notifications issued by the Secretary
under subsection (c) shall be issued to the owners or
charterers of foreign-flag cruise vessels--
(1) in the reverse order in which foreign-flag cruise
vessels entered the coastwise service pursuant to this
section determined by the date of each vessel's first
coastwise sailing; and
(2) in the minimum number needed to ensure that the
passenger-carrying capacity thereby removed from coastwise
service exceeds the passenger-carrying capacity of the United
States-flag cruise vessel which is entering the service.
(e) Termination.--If, at the expiration of the 365-day
period specified in subsection (c), the United States-flag
cruise vessel that has offered or advertised service pursuant
to a Certificate of Financial Responsibility for
Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of
Transportation has not entered the coastwise passenger trade
between ports in Alaska or between ports in Alaska and other
ports on the west coast of the contiguous States, then the
termination of service required by subsection (c) shall not
take effect until 180 days following the entry into the trade
by the United States-flag cruise vessel.
(f) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
as affecting or otherwise modifying the authority contained
in the Act of June 30, 1961 (46 U.S.C. 289b) authorizing the
transportation of passengers and merchandise in Canadian
vessels between ports in Alaska and the United States.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. DeWine,
and Mr. Durbin):
S. 670. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Technical
Corrections Act of 1994 to eliminate the special transition rule for
issuance of a certificate of citizenship for certain children born
outside the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
technical corrections legislation concerning children born overseas
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce on behalf of myself,
Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, and Senator Durbin, a
short, technical bill to correct a drafting error in last year's
immigration bill that could wrongly deny U.S. citizenship to certain
children born overseas to a U.S.-citizen parent.
To explain the problem addressed by this bill, some background is in
order. Prior to 1986, a minor child, born abroad to a U.S.-citizen
parent, was eligible for U.S. citizenship if the child's U.S. citizen-
parent had physically resided in the United States for at least 10
years prior to the child's birth. The 1986 Immigration bill shortened
this residency period to 5 years for children born after its effective
date, but perhaps inadvertently retained the 10-year requirement for
children born before that date.
This double standard yielded anomalous results: In families where the
U.S.-citizen parent had resided in the United States for more than 5
years but less than 10, a younger child--born in, say, 1987--would be
eligible for U.S. citizenship, while that child's older sibling--born
in, say, 1985--would not be. To eliminate this disparity, the
Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended
the relevant provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to
establish a uniform 5-year residency requirement, without regard to the
date of the child's birth.
A provision in last year's immigration bill, however, effectively
repealed the 1994 amendment described above, thus restoring the prior
double standard. There was, of course, no policy basis for this change,
and no one has claimed ownership of it. The change appears to have
simply been a drafting error in a purely technical section of last
year's bill.
This error needs to be corrected without delay. Once a child turns
18, he is no longer eligible to become a U.S. citizen under the
Immigration and Nationality Act provision that was affected by the
drafting error. Thus, children who turn 18 before this error is
corrected will be permanently ineligible to become U.S. citizens under
the provision at issue. The longer this error goes uncorrected, the
greater the number of children who will be harmed by it.
I therefore hope this bill can be passed without delay or
controversy, and I will be working with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to that end.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 671. A bill to clarify the family violence option under the
temporary assistance to needy families program; to the Committee on
Finance.
the family violence option ii act of 1997
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be introducing
the Family Violence Option II, a bill to clarify the Wellstone/Murray
Family violence option Act contained in the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Last summer, Senator
Murray and I introduced the family violence amendment to the welfare
bill to give States the flexibility to identify victims and survivors
of domestic abuse and, if necessary, to provide more time to remove the
domestic violence barrier so that victims would be able to move into
the work force. Our provision was changed to a State option, but that
did not change the intent of the legislation.
[[Page S3847]]
States helping battered women should not be penalized for not having
the requisite number of women at work in a given month if domestic
violence is the reason. Most importantly, battered women should not be
competing with the myriad people with disabilities that prevent them
from working. Abuse victims and survivors may simply need a little more
time. That is why the family violence option allows States to grant
temporary waivers, not exemptions.
Many States have adopted the family violence option, others, some
version of it, but most have had great difficulty figuring out what
taking the option would mean. Senator Murray and I want to make sure
States that take domestic abuse into account when setting work goals
will not pay a price. Therefore, this bill makes it clear that victims
of domestic abuse will not be counted in the 20 percent hardship
exemption and States who grant temporary waivers of work requirements
to abuse survivors will not be penalized if they fail to meet their
work requirements.
Evidence continues to emerge about the high number of incidents of
domestic abuse or a history of abuse among welfare recipients. Most
recently, a joint study from the Taylor Institute in Chicago and the
University of Michigan confirmed that large numbers of women on AFDC
are survivors or current victims. Four recent studies--conducted by
Passaic County, NJ, Univ. of Massachusetts, Northwestern University,
and the Better Homes Fund in Worcester, MA--document that at least 14
percent--Passaic County, NJ--and as high as 32 percent--Worcester, MA--
of women on AFDC were currently being abused. The numbers were more
than twice those percentages for a history of abuse.
Given the extent of this problem, it is imperative that States be
able to work at a more individualized pace, not a one-size-fits-all
approach. I would like to share a story about a woman from Minnesota
who has used the safety net of public assistance to free herself and
her children from violence, obtain job skills and training, and become
self-supporting.
Edith is a woman who has defied the odds. She had her first child at
the age of 16. By the time she was in her early twenties, she had
become an intravenous drug user, had three more children, and was in an
extremely violent relationship. Edith's abuser beat her routinely and
savagely, sending her to the emergency room again and again. As Edith
says, ``Finally, I realized that to save my life and my mental
stability, I had to get away.'' She waited until her abuser had passed
out and carefully pried the car keys from his hand and fled Gary, IN,
with her young sons.
Edith fled to Minnesota because she had family there. Within months
her abuser found her, forcing her to flee to a battered women's
shelter. Edith quickly realized that if she was ever going to be able
to support her children, she would need to get the educational and job
training that she desperately needed. It was at that point that Edith
contacted Cornerstone's Transitional Housing Program. Cornerstone is a
successful women's advocacy program in Bloomington, MN.
Edith and her children came into the program in 1992. Utilizing
educational and vocational resources, Edith entered a vocational
program for electricians. While in Cornerstone's Transitional Housing
Program, Edith was able to address the many issues that had resulted
from her battering, including parenting, bad credit, and chemical
dependency, just to name a few. With support of the program staff,
Edith completed the apprenticeship and graduated from the Cornerstone
program.
I am proud to tell you that Edith will become a licensed electrician
this summer. She has just purchased her first home and has set a new
goal to become a contractor. Edith would tell you that had she not been
given the time and the opportunity to participate in a transitional
housing program specifically for battered women, she could not have
accomplished all of her goals.
We need to insure that women like Edith have the support system in
place to escape abusive situations, make the transition to work, and
then stay working. When women can support themselves and their children
they can stay away from abusive partners and keep themselves and their
families safe. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 671
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the intent of Congress is amending part A of title IV
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in section
103(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.
2112) was to allow States to take into account the effects of
the epidemic of domestic violence in establishing their
welfare programs, by giving States the flexibility to grant
individual, temporary waivers for good cause to victims of
domestic violence who meet the criteria set forth in section
402(a)(7)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
601(a)(7)(B));
(2) the allowance of waivers under such sections was not
intended to be limited by other, separate, and independent
provisions of part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); and
(3) under section 402(a)(7)(A)(iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(7)(A)(iii)), requirements under the temporary
assistance for needy families program under part A of title
IV of such Act may, for good cause, be waived for so long as
necessary.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF WAIVER PROVISIONS RELATING TO
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
(a) In General.--Section 402(a)(7) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) No numerical limits.--In implementing this paragraph,
a State shall not be subject to any numerical limitation in
the granting of good cause waivers under subparagraph
(A)(iii).
``(D) Waivered individuals not included for purposes of
certain other provisions of this part.--Any individual to
whom a good cause waiver of compliance with this Act has been
granted in accordance with subparagraph (A)(iii) shall not be
included for purposes of determining a State's compliance
with the participation rate requirements set forth in section
407, for purposes of applying the limitation described in
section 408(a)(7)(C)(ii), or for purposes of determining
whether to impose a penalty under paragraph (3), (5), or (9)
of section 409(a).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect as if it had been included in the enactment of
section 103(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193;
110 Stat. 2112).
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 673. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in order to promote and
improve employee stock ownership plans; to the Committee on Finance.
THE ESOP PROMOTION ACT OF 1997
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that
will enhance employee ownership in businesses across America. The ESOP
Promotion Act of 1997, which I introduce today with my colleague,
Senator Hatch of Utah, will facilitate employee ownership and
retirement savings and enhance the opportunities for America's
entrepreneurs to gain improved access to capital. This legislation
would both improve and update a number of obsolete operating rules for
employee stock ownership programs and would implement the full intent
of Congress, which last year passed legislation designed to make ESOP's
available to Subchapter S corporations.
The ESOP Promotion Act benefits the owners and workers in the 2
million S corporations which exist in every industry in every State
across America. As the country's principal corporate vehicle for
entrepreneurs and family business startups, S corporations have long
been engines of economic growth. Unfortunately, the restrictions placed
on these businesses have also resulted, more recently, in reduced
capital access for S corporations. For an S corporation which had hit
the limit on the number of allowable shareholders or the amount of
personal debt that its owners could assume to keep the company in
business, there has been a burdensome capital crunch affecting not only
these companies directly, but hindering the ability of our entire
national economy to realize its growth potential.
Last year, as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1997,
Congress enabled S corporations to have
[[Page S3848]]
ESOP's. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that measure, which by
allowing S corporation ESOP's did two additional, critical things: it
gave S corporations a new way to access funds without putting any new
burdens on the Federal tax base, and it gave millions of workers a way
to participate directly in the success and growth of the businesses
which employed them.
But despite the success we marked in 1996, the many S corporations
which now want to build ESOP's cannot. The reason: there continues to
be a number of largely technical hurdles in the Tax Code that make it
difficult, if not impossible, to establish and sustain these employee
ownership programs.
One example of such a hurdle, is that, under current law, if an S
corporation's ESOP distributes stock to its employee participants, and
even one employee rolls over his stock into an entity that is not a
permissible S corporation shareholder--say, an IRA account--then the
company's Subchapter S election will be entirely invalidated. This, of
course, is a risk that no S corporation is willing to take, and while
the problem seems minor and technical on its face, no S corporation
will establish an ESOP under these conditions.
Another example of a technical disincentive is that, while S
corporations were established in the 1950's as pass-through companies
which pay a single layer of taxes, the S corporation ESOP would have to
pay two layers of tax--one when the S corporation distributes stock to
the ESOP, and the other when the ESOP distributes stock or cash to
its participants. The second layer of tax was certainly not envisioned
by Congress when we permitted S corporations to have ESOP's last year.
Unfortunately, in its current form, this technicality means that an S
corporation ESOP participant would pay a nearly 70 percent greater tax
on his share of income than he would if he owned the company's stock
directly. As such, S corporation ESOP's are not yet viable for
employees, though we certainly intended that they would be when we
established them.
The legislation that we are introducing eliminates these and other
technical problems by establishing parity between ESOP's sponsored by S
corporations and those sponsored by C corporations; ensuring S
corporation ESOP participants that they are subject to only one layer
of taxation; and permitting employees to sell certain stock to an ESOP
and defer tax on gain.
In addition to the important S corporation measures in the
legislation, the ESOP Promotion Act would improve the retirement
savings opportunities for American workers. The bill would give
employees the option to direct employers to retain dividends paid on
employer stock in the ESOP/401(k) plan for reinvestment in the employer
stock. Employees could then defer income taxes on the dividends and
allow them to grow tax-free in their ESOP/401(k) plan until retirement.
The bill would also correct an inequity to workers in the current tax
law which provides an incentive for employers to pay the dividends to
employees in cash, rather than to reinvest them in the ESOP/401(k)
plan. Employers currently receive a tax deduction for dividends paid on
stock held in the ESOP/401(k) plan only if the dividends are passed
through to plan participants or are used to pay off an ESOP loan. The
ESOP Promotion Act would provide employers with the tax deduction they
currently receive on dividends paid on employer stock that is passed
through to plan participants, if the dividends instead remain in the
plan for reinvestment. This reinvestment opportunity for employees will
enhance their retirement savings and facilitate employee ownership.
Congress now has a responsibility for finishing the task we began
last year--one that, perhaps, many of us believed we had completed--
when we agreed that S corporations should have ESOP's and enacted a law
to that effect. Our bill completes the task by making ESOP's useful and
desirable for the millions of workers in S corporations, while ensuring
that they are suitable for the companies that wish to sponsor ESOP's.
Clearly when Congress enacted the S corporation ESOP provision, we
expected that it would be functional by its effective date, which is
January 1, 1998. I hope that my colleagues will support our
legislation, and ensure that our intent is fully implemented by the end
of this year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 673
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``ESOP Promotion Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. PROVISIONS RELATING TO S CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHING
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLANS.
(a) Repeal of Provision Making Certain ESOP Benefits
Inapplicable to S Corporations.--Section 1316(d) of the Small
Business Job Protection Act of 1996 is repealed, and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and
administered as if the amendments made by such section had
not been enacted.
(b) Repeal of Application of Unrelated Business Income
Tax.--Section 512(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(1) by striking ``described in section 1361(c)(7)'' in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``described in section 501(c)(3)
and exempt from taxation under section 501(a)'', and
(2) by inserting ``Charitable Organizations Holding Stock
in'' after ``Applicable to'' in the heading.
(c) ESOPs Allowed To Distribute Cash Rather Than Stock.--
(1) In general.--Section 409(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(8) Plan maintained by s corporation.--In the case of a
plan established and maintained by an S corporation which
otherwise meets the requirements of this subsection or
section 4975(e)(7), such plan shall not be treated as failing
to meet the requirements of this subsection or section 401(a)
merely because it does not permit a participant to exercise
the right described in paragraph (1)(A) if such plan provides
that the participant entitled to a distribution from the plan
shall have a right to receive the distribution in cash.''
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 409(h)(2) of such Code
is amended--
(A) by striking ``A plan'' and inserting:
``(A) In general.--A plan'', and
(B) by striking ``In the case of an employer'' and
inserting:
``(B) Plans restricted by charter or bylaws.--In the case
of an employer''.
(d) Exemptions From Prohibited Transaction Rules Available
to ESOPs and Shareholder Employees.--The last sentence of
section 408(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1108(d)) is amended by striking all that
precedes ``a participant or beneficiary'' and inserting ``For
purposes of this subsection,''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1997.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SECTION 1042.
(a) Extension of Section 1042 Principles to Stock Received
as Compensation for Services.--
(1) In general.--Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to property transferred in connection with
performance of services) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(i) Exception for Transfers of Qualified Securities Sold
to Employee Stock Ownership Plans.--
``(1) Exclusion from income.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall
not apply to, and no amount shall be includible in gross
income with respect to, the transfer of any qualified
security (as defined in section 1042(c)(1)) in connection
with the performance of services if, and to the extent that,
within 60 days after the event which would cause the
recognition of income pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) but
for this subsection, the transferee sells such qualified
security to an employee stock ownership plan (as defined in
section 4975(e)(7)) and the requirements of section 1042(a)
are met with respect to such sale.
``(2) No deduction by employer.--Notwithstanding the
provisions of subsection (h), the person for whom the
services were performed in connection with which any
qualified security is transferred shall not be entitled to a
deduction with respect to such transfer if, and to the extent
that, paragraph (1) applies to such transfer.''
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 424(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the period
at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``, or'', and by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) a sale to which section 1042 applies.''
(B) Section 1042(a) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``which would be recognized as long-term
capital gain'' from the first sentence thereof, and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Any
gain which is recognized after the application of the
preceding sentence shall be treated as ordinary income to the
extent of the lesser of the amount of such gain or the amount
which would have been treated as ordinary income but for this
section.''
(C) Section 1042(b)(4) of such Code is amended by adding at
the end the following
[[Page S3849]]
new sentence: ``The requirements of the preceding sentence
shall not apply to qualified securities received by the
taxpayer in a transfer to which section 83 or 422 applied (or
to which section 422 or 424 (as in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of
1990) applied).''
(D) Section 1042(c)(1)(B) of such Code is amended to read
as follows:
``(B) were not received by the taxpayer in--
``(i) a distribution from a plan described in section
401(a), or
``(ii) a transfer pursuant to a right to acquire stock to
which section 423 applied.''
(E) The first sentence of section 1042(d) of such Code is
amended to read as follows: ``The basis of the taxpayer in
qualified replacement property purchased by the taxpayer
during the replacement period shall be reduced by the amount
of gain not recognized by virtue of such purchase, taking
into account the application of subsection (a) and, if
applicable, the application of section 83(i) or section
424(c)(1)(D).''
(F) Section 1042(e)(1) of such Code is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--If a taxpayer disposes of any qualified
replacement property, then, notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, gain (if any) shall be recognized to
the extent of the gain which was not recognized by reason of
the acquisition by such taxpayer of such qualified
replacement property, taking into account the application of
subsection (a) and, if applicable, the application of section
83(i) or 424(c)(1)(D). Such gain shall be treated as ordinary
income to the extent of the excess (if any) of the amount
which would have been treated as ordinary income but for the
application of such sections over the amount treated as
ordinary income under the last sentence of subsection (a).''
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to sales of qualified securities on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Modification to 25-Percent Shareholder Rule.--
(1) In general.--Section 409(n)(1)(B) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) for the benefit of any other person who owns (after
the application of section 318(a)) more than 25 percent of--
``(i) the total combined voting power of all classes of
stock of the corporation which issued such employer
securities or of any corporation which is a member of the
same controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of
subsection (l)(4)) as such corporation, or
``(ii) the total value of all classes of stock of any such
corporation.''
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. ESOP DIVIDENDS MAY BE REINVESTED WITHOUT LOSS OF
DIVIDEND DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 404(k)(2)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining applicable dividends) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by
redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv), and by inserting
after clause (ii) the following new clause:
``(iii) is, at the election of such participants or their
beneficiaries--
``(I) payable as provided in clause (i) or (ii), or
``(II) paid to the plan and reinvested in employer
securities, or''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1997.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Breaux, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. D'Amato, Mr.
Bryan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Robb, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 674. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
encourage States to expand health coverage of low income children and
pregnant women and to provide funds to promote outreach efforts to
enroll eligible children under health insurance programs; to the
Committee on Finance.
children's health insurance provides security (chips) act
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce
legislation to provide health insurance for millions of children who
are not currently covered. Before I talk about the bill, let me take a
moment to thank all of the members of the bipartisan coalition who have
worked so hard to put this legislation together. Senator Rockefeller,
the lead Democratic cosponsor and my colleague on the Finance
Committee, deserves very special mention in this regard. Senator
Rockefeller has worked for many, many years on these issues and I am
personally grateful for all his leadership and hard work in this
endeavor. He is a true hero when it comes to America's children.
There are currently 10 million children in this country who do not
have health insurance. Many of these children live in families where
one or both parents are working but do not have employee coverage and
earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Others, though eligible, simply
fall through the cracks, while still others lose eligibility because of
age-based restrictions. This is a tragic problem and our proposal tries
to provide real solutions.
The Chafee-Rockefeller proposal offers the States additional Federal
matching funds if they choose to provide Medicaid coverage to all
children up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. It is a
completely voluntary program--we hope that all States will participate,
but we leave that decision to the Governors. States, like Rhode Island,
that are already providing coverage at these levels will immediately
begin to get additional Federal matching funds once they have provided
the 1-year continuous coverage. Our bill also provides grant funds for
States to use for outreach to the 3 million children who are eligible
for Medicaid but not enrolled.
I believe that the Medicaid Program is the best avenue to reach these
uninsured children. Expansions in the Medicaid Program over the years
have done wonders in increasing coverage for children and pregnant
women. We also have to keep an eye on cost, and Medicaid is an
inexpensive way to cover children--while half of Medicaid beneficiaries
are children, children only account for 15 percent of overall Medicaid
spending. And Medicaid is a program that already exists, so we don't
have to create a new program or a new bureaucracy. In short, Medicaid
works and works well.
By encouraging States to provide Medicaid coverage to all children
under 18 up to 150 percent of poverty, our proposal also tries to fix
one of the program's problems: under the current Medicaid program a
child's eligibility depends not only on family income, but also on age.
Let me illustrate this for you: a 6-year-old girl lives in a family
of four whose annual income is $21,000. That little girl gets Medicaid
because Federal law requires that all children 6 and under be covered
up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. On her seventh
birthday, that little girl doesn't get much of a birthday present--she
loses her Medicaid coverage because Federal law only requires that
children between the ages of 7 and 13 be covered up to 100 percent of
poverty, and her family's income level is slightly above that level.
Her 4-year-old brother, however, keeps his Medicaid coverage, at least
for the next 2 years. How bizarre that there are two children in the
same family and one gets coverage because he's under 6 and the other
doesn't because she's older than 6. Our proposal would give States the
option to continue Medicaid coverage for both children until they are
18.
So, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today along with
this distinguished bipartisan group of Senators. I look forward to
working together toward the goal of getting critical health care
coverage to these children.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased and proud to
be introducing legislation today with my colleague from Rhode Island,
Senator Chafee. As my colleagues in the Senate already know, Senator
Chafee has long been a leader in the area of health care, especially
when it comes to the health care of children. I am also extremely
pleased to be introducing this bill with the help of Senator Breaux and
the newest member of the Finance Committee, Senator Jeffords. We are
excited to be joined by so many of our colleagues on the Finance
Committee, Senators Moynihan, D'Amato, Baucus, Hatch, Bryan, Kerrey,
and Moseley-Braun, and with so many of our other colleagues who have
joined us as original cosponsors, including Senators Collins, Bingaman,
Snowe, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Robb, Hutchinson, Inouye, Daschle, and
Specter.
Mr. President, our legislation already enjoys broad bipartisan
support because it meets a serious need and it meets that need in a
very cost-effective manner. Our legislation builds on an existing
program and employs an approach that the Finance Committee
[[Page S3850]]
has used repeatedly over the past decade to expand health coverage to
children and pregnant women. Our legislation is, therefore, not new,
original, or terribly innovative. But, we know it works.
For me personally, this legislation fulfills another part of my
promise to work tirelessly to turn the recommendations of the National
Commission on Children, which I was honored to chair, into reality.
That blue ribbon panel of children's leaders from many fields,
representing a wide spectrum of views, successfully developed a
unanimous report to recommend an action plan to give America's children
a real shot at becoming productive, healthy citizens. During our
deliberations, we recognized that ensuring basic health care for
children should be one of the country's highest priorities. The bill we
are introducing today challenges Congress to make the commitment to
this basic objective that is so vital for the entire country's future.
Our legislation is complementary to many of the other children health
bills that have been already proposed this year. That is one reason why
I am also a cosponsor of other health bills that have been introduced
by Senators Hatch and Kennedy and Senator Daschle. These bills are not
competing bills. They all seek to expand the number of children with
health insurance and they could all easily fit together to meet a
large, and I am sad to report, a growing need in this country.
A total of 10 million children in the United States do not have
health insurance and as a result, the vast majority of them do not get
necessary health care. Numerous studies have shown that uninsured
children do not receive basic preventive care and immunizations. They
are less likely to see a doctor for both acute and chronic illnesses
and are more likely to delay seeking necessary care. Uninsured sick
newborns receive fewer services in the hospital than those with health
coverage. Children without insurance are less likely to have a regular
source of medical care. This means that these children miss out on
getting properly screened for problems that could be easily treated
early or that need to be monitored on a routine basis. According to the
American Academy of Pediatrics, having a regular source of medical care
could reduce per-child health care costs by 22 percent.
Those are the facts. But let us not forget the emotional turmoil a
parent goes through trying to figure out when, or if, to get an earache
treated or a rash checked out. Imagine how hard it must be for a mother
and father to decide to wait just one more day in hopes that a
troubling symptom will disappear only to have those symptoms worsen in
the middle of the night. Some families don't even allow their children
to play sports for fear of an injury. Having millions of families and
children in these types of situations is just plain wrong, and we must
try to help.
Mr. President, the vast majority of uninsured children live in
families where a parent works. Unfortunately, many of these families
are unable to afford coverage offered by their employer when it is
offered. In too many instances working parents don't even have that
option. The trends for job-based insurance are very disturbing. Between
1987 and 1995 the percentage of children with job-based insurance
declined from 67 to 59 percent. But this downward trend is not new.
Between 1977 and 1987 job-based insurance declined by 5 percent. Every
minute that goes by another child loses his or her private health
insurance.
Mr. President, our bill is very simple. We encourage States to expand
coverage for children by offering them an enhanced Federal match. Under
our bill, the States would be eligible to receive a 30-percent increase
in their current Federal matching rate if they choose to expand
coverage for pregnant women, infants, and children up to 150 percent of
poverty. We cap the Federal match at 90 percent so that all States
would be required to contribute some additional funding. Under our
bill, Rhode Island would be eligible to receive an enhanced Federal
match rate of 70 percent up from 54 percent. West Virginia would be
eligible to receive a 90 percent Federal match, up from 72 percent.
Our legislation targets those families earning less than one-and-one-
half times the poverty level or about $24,000 a year for a family of
four. Only a quarter of families at or below this income level have
job-based insurance. By comparison, 81 percent of families earning
wages above 150 percent of poverty have job-based insurance. The
concern of replacing private insurance with public coverage--the so
called crowding out effect--is minimized when so little job-based
coverage even exists for families at these income levels.
Under current law, Medicaid eligibility varies based on a child's age
and a family's income level. Our legislation aims to establish uniform
level of eligibility. I recently heard from a West Virginia mother
desperate for health insurance for her 1-year-old. She and her husband
work and earn about $22,000 a year. When their daughter turned 1, she
lost her Medicaid coverage. She qualified for Medicaid when she was an
infant but because Medicaid's income standard for eligibility is
different for a 1-year-old she no longer qualified after her first
birthday. The mother's employer offered health insurance, but at a cost
of $289 a month or $3,500 a year. They could not afford to buy it. This
mother was absolutely desperate for assistance because she knew her
daughter needed immunizations and other well child care services.
Mr. President, our legislation seeks to end instances of children
losing their Medicaid coverage just because they have a birthday. Our
legislation seeks to end instances of children in the same family
having to meet different income standards.
We do this not by mandating States to expand their Medicaid Program.
We believe that by providing additional Federal money States will be
able to move beyond their current eligibility levels. Our legislation
would also allow those States that have already exceeded 150 percent of
poverty to receive an enhanced Federal match. This match would be for
those children they are already covering between 100 percent and 150
percent of poverty. We did not think it was fair to penalize those
States who have already tried to improve coverage for children.
A key way to expand the number of children enrolled in Medicaid is to
guarantee eligibility for 12 months. Some 3 million children are
currently eligible but not enrolled in the Medicaid Program. Some of
these children qualify for a few months of Medicaid coverage. But
because of slight changes in their parents' income, they lose coverage
over the course of the year. Our bill would require States to guarantee
12 months of eligibility for all children on Medicaid as a condition of
receiving an enhanced Federal match.
Expansions of Medicaid in the late 1980's resulted in a decreased
number of low birthweight babies, improved access to health care, a
decline in infant mortality rates, and millions more children in
working families with health insurance. We can build on these successes
with this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in
the Senate and in the House in advancing this bill. I am excited at our
opportunity to meet a very real and vital need of millions of America's
children.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the children of America need our help.
Nearly 10 million children have no health insurance. Many of these
children live in families with working parents who simply do not make
enough money to afford health insurance.
In order to help address this national problem, I am pleased to
cosponsor, with many of my good friends and colleagues, the Children's
Health Insurance Provides Security [CHIPS] Act. The CHIPS Act will
provide Federal financial incentives to encourage States to provide
uniform Medicaid coverage up to 150 percent of poverty for children of
all ages.
The Medicaid Program provides health care for poor children and
pregnant women. My home State of Vermont, through its Dr. Dynasaur
program, uses Medicaid and is now ranked second best in the Nation in
providing health insurance coverage for children under 18 years of age.
We felt it was important to improve our existing Medicaid system, a
system which is already in place and currently provides health coverage
to 16 million low-income children. Three million additional children
are eligible to receive Medicaid benefits, but they are just not
enrolled. We should fix that problem.
[[Page S3851]]
We also feel that it is important to provide incentives to expand
Medicaid coverage nationally to the children of families who are at 150
percent of the Federal poverty level--the working poor. This
legislation builds upon the good work done in Vermont, and many other
States, in ensuring that our children have access to health care.
Our bill encourages States to expand current Medicaid eligibility for
children and pregnant women to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level
by increasing the amount of money that the Federal Government
contributes to the Medicaid Program. States that elect to participate
in the program will need to guarantee that all children are covered to
at least 100 percent of the Federal poverty level and that all children
are provided with 12 months of continuous medical coverage.
The bill also provides grant money for outreach programs. States may
design their own outreach programs based on their special needs and
specific populations. We will help by simplifying the application
process for Medicaid and other Federal programs for which these
children qualify. One third of all uninsured children are eligible but
not enrolled in Medicaid. Our bill, by emphasizing outreach and
administrative simplification, will help get many of these children
enrolled in the Medicaid Program.
We must commit our efforts to giving children the best possible start
in life. As a recent report entitled ``the Social Well-Being of
Vermonters'' indicates, the foundations we lay for our young children
will affect their later success in all areas of life. A healthy start
begins with a healthy pregnancy and early, comprehensive prenatal care.
Our legislation will give many children the health insurance coverage
they need and, by doing so, help ensure a solid foundation for our
country's future.
____________________