[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 124 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9427-S9433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 3008. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand 
the loan forgiveness and loan cancellation programs for teachers, to 
provide loan forgiveness and loan cancellation programs for nurses, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with my good friend from 
Alaska, Senator Stevens, am introducing legislation that will help 
bolster two critical components of Iowa's and the Nation's economic 
future: healthcare and education.
  Across Iowa and America, we face a critical and worsening shortage of 
nurses and teachers. By 2010 there will be a shortage of 725,000 
nurses. By 2020, that shortage will increase to 1.2 million as the baby 
boomers begin to retire and need more care.
  It's much the same case for teachers. In Iowa, 40 percent of our 
teachers will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years. And 17 
percent of Iowa first year teachers leave the classroom after only one 
year. This is almost twice the national average. We'll need more than 2 
million teachers nationwide just to replace the teachers that retire or 
leave the profession.
  Clearly, a shortage of nurses or teachers will have a profound impact 
on the quality of education for our children and the quality of health 
care for every Iowan. We have to do more to attract young people to 
these difficult yet rewarding careers.
  One reason young people aren't taking on teaching or nursing is 
because they're buried in college loan debt. According to the ``Burden 
of Borrowing'', a report by the United States Public Interest Research 
Group, 64 percent of students graduated in 1999-2000 with Federal 
education loan debt. Further, the average student loan debt has nearly 
doubled over the past eight years to $16,928. Young people simply can't 
pursue careers that are critical to Iowa's and America's future because 
their college debt causes them to enter into unmanageable repayment 
plans.
  Earlier this year, I spoke with college students from schools across 
central Iowa. Many of these students will walk away from college with a 
diploma in one hand and a $20,000 student loan bill in the other. When 
students loan debt keeps our kids from becoming Iowa's next teachers 
and nurses there's something very wrong with America's priorities.
  That's why I, along with my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, 
am introducing a plan to offer up to $17,500 of loan forgiveness to 
students who go into teaching or nursing for at least 5 years. Under 
our plan, students would get needed relief from loan debt and Iowa and 
America would get its next generation of nurses and teachers. That's a 
good investment in education, health care, and our nation's future.
  I think we've got a good chance of moving this proposal forward. 
President Bush has proposed a similar plan aimed just at teachers in a 
few subject areas. However, I am aware that school districts throughout 
the United States are faced with problems attracting and retaining 
teachers in more than just the areas of special education, math and 
science. Since the White House has embraced the general approach, I am 
hopeful they'll also support our broader plan for teachers and nurses. 
It's a common sense proposal that's focused on Iowa and America's 
future.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for our legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                  American Nurses Association,

                                  Washington, DC, August 30, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I write on behalf of the American 
     Nurses Association (ANA) to express gratitude and support for 
     your intent

[[Page S9428]]

     to introduce legislation to provide loan forgiveness and loan 
     cancellation programs for registered nurses.
       ANA is the only full-service association representing the 
     nation's registered nurses through its 54 constituent member 
     nurse associations. The ANA represents registered nurses of 
     all educational preparation in all practice settings.
       ANA supports your legislation because it aims to address 
     the impending nursing shortage. This shortage is projected to 
     soon reach crisis proportions, just as the baby boom 
     population begins to place great demands on the health care 
     system.
       A reason for the emerging nurse shortage is a decreasing 
     number of young people entering the nursing profession. As 
     you may well be aware, enrollments in nursing programs have 
     dropped by 17 percent since 1995. Current projections show 
     that the number of nurses per capita will fall 20 percent 
     below requirements by 2020. Your legislation will help 
     reverse the trend and encourage entry into the profession.
       As nurses are the largest single group of health care 
     professionals in America, the nurse shortage threatens the 
     very fabric of our health care delivery system. An adequately 
     prepared and supported nursing workforce is essential for the 
     health of our nation.
       ANA thanks you for your strong support of nursing issues 
     and for introducing this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Rose Gonzalez,
     Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                             Americans for Nursing


                                              Shortage Relief,

                                                  August 19, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Stevens: The undersigned members 
     of the ANSR Alliance (Americans for Nursing Shortage Relief) 
     strongly support your draft bill to amend the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 and increase nursing education loan 
     opportunities within the Department of Education. As 
     delineated in the bill, this positive move to bring more 
     individuals into the nursing profession and support the 
     creation of nurse educators will be accomplished through loan 
     cancellation and forgiveness after five years of service in a 
     clinical setting or at an accredited school of nursing. We 
     greatly appreciate your understanding of the need for 
     multiple programs throughout the federal government to 
     alleviate the critical nursing shortage that is facing us 
     today and which will continue to do so unless we stem its 
     growth.
       A key issue in ensuring public access to high quality 
     nursing services is the growing faculty shortage and 
     implications for the preparation of new nursing 
     professionals. The median age of nurse faculty is 52 years 
     old, and the impending retirement of seasoned faculty over 
     the next decade will significantly impact the ability of 
     schools and universities to sustain quality nursing 
     educational programs that prepare an adequate supply of 
     nurses to meet the Nation's needs. The educational incentives 
     described in the proposed legislation hold promise as 
     effective tools to insure monies are available to train 
     critically needed nurse faculty.
       The ANSR Alliance thanks you for your commitment to 
     advancing an innovative solution to help alleviate the 
     nursing shortage in the United States. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure passage of this important piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely yours,
       American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing.
       American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.
       American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
       American Association of Critical Care Nurses.
       American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
       American College of Nurse-Midwives.
       American College of Nurse Practitioners.
       American Nephrology Nurses Association.
       American Organization of Nurse Executives.
       American Society of Pain Management Nurses.
       American Society of Perianesthesia Nurses.
       American Society of Plastic Surgical Nurses.
       Association of Faculties of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners.
       Association of periOperative Registered Nurses.
       Association of State and Territorial Directors of Nursing.
       Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal 
     Nurses.
       Emergency Nurses Association.
       National Alaska Native American Indian Nurses Association.
       National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists.
       National Association of Neonatal Nurses.
       National Association of Orthopaedic Nurses.
       National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners.
       National Association of School Nurses.
       National Black Nurses Association, Inc.
       National Conference of Gerontological Nurse Practitioners.
       National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc.
       National League for Nursing.
       National Nursing Centers Consortium.
       National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties.
       National Student Nurses' Association, Inc.
       Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs.
       Oncology Nursing Society.
       Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, Inc.
       Society of Pediatric Nurses.
                                  ____

                                    American Council on Education,


                                      Office of the President,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2002.
     Re support of the Teacher and Nurse Support Act of 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin, On behalf of the American Council on 
     Education (ACE) and the organization listed below, I thank 
     you for introducing legislation to expand and extend loan 
     forgiveness and cancellation programs for teachers and 
     nurses. We are grateful to you for working so hard to 
     alleviate the financial burden of America's students, 
     particularly our teachers and nurses. These highly valued but 
     underpaid professionals are educated and prepared in our 
     institutions. We will work with you in building support for 
     these good measures and we will wholeheartedly support your 
     bill when it comes up for consideration.
       Providing financial incentives to nursing and teaching 
     students via federal loan programs is one of the best ways to 
     attract and retain talented individuals to pursue academic 
     study and careers in these important fields.
       As individuals retire and the vacancies for nurses and 
     teachers grow, the United States will need to replace and 
     supplement these essential vocations with qualified 
     personnel. These types of programs and incentives are 
     especially helpful for individuals who choose to dedicate 
     their time and energy to careers that are rarely financially 
     lucrative.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this important 
     issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                       David Ward,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
       American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
       American Council on Education.
       Association of American Universities.
       Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.
       National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher 
     Education.
       National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers.
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.
       National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
     Colleges.
       The State PIRGs' Higher Education Project.
       United States Student Association.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 2002.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to 
     express our support for the Teacher and Nurse Support Act of 
     2002.
       We are very pleased that your legislation seeks to address 
     the nation's growing teacher shortage by providing student 
     loan forgiveness for individuals who enter the profession. 
     New teacher quality standards coupled with a national teacher 
     shortage make attracting and retaining quality teachers even 
     more important, particilary in high-poverty areas. 
     Unfortunately, too many of today's students rely on loans in 
     order to afford higher education. The resulting debt burden 
     often limits career choices and prevents many talented 
     students from pursuing careers in public service, including 
     as teachers.
       By expanding loan forgiveness and targeting it more toward 
     teachers in high poverty schools, rather than toward limited 
     academic disciplines, your bill will help encourage talented 
     individuals to enter the teaching profession and to bring 
     their skills to schools with the greatest need. In addition, 
     by providing for mandatory spending, the bill will ensure 
     that teachers who qualify will receive the loan forgiveness 
     they need.
       We thank you for your leadership on this important issue 
     and look forward to continuing to work with you in support of 
     children and public education.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations.
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.

[[Page S9429]]

        Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Leahy, and 
        Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 3009. A bill to provide econonmic security for America's workers; 
read the first time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, on behalf of 
myself and a large and bipartisan group of my colleagues, the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. I want to especially acknowledge 
the hard, really the relentless work, in particular of Senator Clinton 
and Senator Kennedy on this issue. They care deeply about the plight of 
hard-working men and women in their States and around the country, who 
are struggling, through no fault of their own, to deal with the effects 
of our flagging economy. I commend their work.
  We cannot have a secure Nation if we do not address issues of our 
economic security as well.
  Working men and women around the country and in Minnesota, blue 
collar and white collar, are hurting.
  The economy, battered by corporate accountability scandals, 
plummeting stock prices, and now flagging consumer confidence, is 
deteriorating.
  And the jobs simply are not there. Minnesota has lost more than 
40,000 jobs in the past 18 months. There are currently 123,000 
Minnesotans unemployed. In the second quarter of this year, unemployed 
workers in Minnesota looking for jobs outnumbered unfilled jobs by 2-1.
  The national picture is no different. Nationally, more than 2 million 
jobs have been lost over the last 18 months. We have more than 8 
million men and women out of work. This is the only Administration in 
the past 50 years that has presided over a decline in private sector 
jobs.
  What's more, long term unemployment is up sharply. Nationally, nearly 
1 in five of the 8 million unemployed workers have been out of work for 
6 months or more. Between May and July of this year, around 900,000 
workers exhausted the extended unemployment benefits made available 
through the unemployment insurance extension in March. By the end of 
2002 we expect over 2 million workers to exhaust these benefits.
  In Minnesota, through the end of July, over 17,000 workers had 
exhausted the benefits that we temporarily extended back in March of 
this year, with thousands more likely to exhaust in the future.
  That is why we are announcing today the introduction of the 
``Economic Security Act of 2002.'' It does the following: Extends, 
through July 2003, the temporary extended benefits program, due to 
expire on December 31st. Provides another 13 weeks of extended benefits 
for workers running out of benefits in all states and another 20 weeks 
in high unemployment states.
  This mirrors the benefit extensions signed into law by Bush, Sr.
  The triggers used to determine ``high unemployment'' are: A 4 percent 
Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate (AUIR) or a 6 percent Total 
Unemployment Rate (TUR).
  The AUIR and the TUR are exactly the same triggers used in the early 
90's. The levels are different to reflect the new reality of a 
significantly lower natural unemployment rate. [In the 90's we used a 5 
percent AUIR and a 9 percent TUR, virtually no states would trigger at 
these levels today].
  In the 90's we extended benefits 5 times, by large bi-partisan votes. 
Three of those votes (91-2; 94-2; and 93-3) were during Bush 1.
  And the need is even greater now. By year's end we expect 2.2 million 
workers to have exhausted. In 1992, for a comparable period, there were 
only 1.4 million workers who exhausted benefits.
  The need is urgent--we should pass this measure immediately.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on September 12, 2001, hundreds of 
thousands of New Yorkers woke up to a changed world, thousands had lost 
family, friends and co-workers to the terrorist attacks of September 11 
and hundreds of thousands more New Yorkers had lost their jobs. America 
watched the scenes of New York and felt pride in the firefighters, the 
police officers, the emergency workers, and the construction workers 
who had all fled to Ground Zero to help with recovery.
  The images that our Nation did not see as prominently were the faces 
of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who were left jobless. 
There were the workers whose jobs were literally destroyed when the 
Twin Towers collapsed, the janitors, the doormen, the waiters and 
waitresses, the secretaries, and messengers. Or, the workers who did 
not work in lower Manhattan, but who felt the ripple effect of the so-
called frozen zone, primarily the hotel workers and small businesses 
owners.
  In the months following September 11, these individuals streamed into 
my office and called on the phone pleading for my assistance. At first, 
New York was able to offer displaced workers needed assistance through 
regular unemployment insurance, UI. And, for those workers who did not 
qualify for regular UI, either because they worked for a small business 
or they were new employees, they were able to receive Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance, DUA, provided through the Federal Emergency 
Management Administration, FEMA.
  In September 2001, the unemployment rate in New York City was 6.3 
percent. And, in the period following September 2001, this rate began 
to spike up such that we experienced unemployment rates that we had not 
seen since the recession of the early 1990s. In December 2001, the 
unemployment rate rose to 7.4 percent, 2.4 percent above the national 
average for the same period. In March 2002, the unemployment rate 
climbed to 7.5 percent and in June 2002 it reached 8 percent. New York 
City lost 150,000 jobs in the aftermath of September 11 and the City is 
not expected to rebound until 2004. New York City was not alone, New 
York State saw a climbing unemployment rate for the same period. In 
September 2001, the unemployment rate in the state was at 5.2 percent; 
it went up to 5.7 percent in December 2001, to 5.9 percent in March 
2002, and to 6.1 percent in June 2002.
  Once it became clear that the economy was not going to recover 
quickly and that it was going to take New York State and New York City 
years to rebuild the economy, I immediately began to fight for the 
extension of Unemployment Insurance and Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance so that New Yorkers could receive a small bit of short-term 
economic security while they searched for jobs. On November 1, 2001, I 
introduced a bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for an 
additional 13-weeks and, at the same time, I urged the Congressional 
Leadership to include an extension of regular unemployment insurance in 
the economic stimulus package.
  After sustained work on these bills, I was pleased in March 2002 to 
join my colleagues in voting for an economic stimulus package that 
included a 13-week extension of Unemployment Insurance and, in the same 
month, I was pleased that we passed the bill to extend Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance for 13 more weeks.
  These extensions, however, were short-lived. The economy continued to 
weaken with corporate scandals and little job growth.
  In June, I started to hear from thousands of my constituents who were 
still out of work and concerned that their extended unemployment 
benefits would soon run out. They were frightened and unsettled and 
looking to me to help. I saw that this was a serious problem for many 
New Yorkers so I introduced a bill on July 19, 2002, to provide for 
another 13-week extension of unemployment insurance. This bill, S. 
2714, garnered eight co-sponsors. I also introduced a companion bill, 
S. 2715, to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance. Six of my 
colleagues joined me in co-sponsoring it. I also worked with my 
colleagues on the House to introduce a companion bill. Rep. Charlie 
Rangel, from New York City, introduced H.R. 5089, which received 34 co-
sponsors, including fourteen members of the New York Congressional 
delegation.
  The need to help struggling workers in New York and throughout the 
Nation, however, was not breaking through. On September 13, 2002, I 
made my case for the need to extend unemployment insurance through an 
op-ed in the New York Times, which I would like to submit for the 
Record today. In this article, I refer to Felix Batista, a

[[Page S9430]]

father of four who lost his job as a result of September 11 and has not 
been able to get back on his feet. Felix came to Washington to testify 
at a HELP Committee hearing on September 12, 2002, and told his story 
to all the members of the Committee. I was pleased to meet with him and 
the hundreds of other unemployed New Yorkers who came to town to ask 
that Congress extend unemployment benefits.
  On September 15, 2002, I appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert 
and again mentioned the dramatic rise in long-term unemployment and the 
need to extend benefits and help those who are suffering as a result of 
the economy. Last week, I delivered a floor statement on this bill to 
again reinforce the message that I have been trying to get out to all 
of my colleagues. And yesterday, I worked with Senator Kennedy to 
organize a press conference to draw attention to this issue. There, I 
introduced Vera Matty, a former executive assistant at BMG who lost her 
job last November as a result of the recession.
  Today, 24 of my colleagues and I are introducing a bill to extend 
Unemployment Insurance for another 13 weeks and 20 weeks for states 
like New York that are suffering from high unemployment. In addition, 
today the Environment and Public Works Committee approved my bill to 
extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for another 13 weeks. I am 
pleased that the EPW Committee is taking action on this bill, S. 2715, 
and I hope that the Senate will move quickly to approve it.
  New Yorkers are suffering. We have suffered a double blow as a result 
of September 11 and the recession. And September 20, 2002 there was an 
article in the New York Times stating that New York City's poverty rate 
is growing for the first time in five years.
  This economy was in a recession on September 10. It was devastated on 
September 11 and the people who have exhausted their unemployment 
benefits need our help now.
  Too many Americans are out of work and having a hard time providing 
for their families. Too many have lost their jobs and watched their 
pensions and retirement securities disappear because of the illegal and 
unethical and inexplicable behavior of corporate executives. And 
despite their steadfast efforts to find work and their overwhelming 
desire to get back to work, they remain out of work and struggle to 
make ends meet.
  In New York, there are 135,000 New Yorkers who have exhausted their 
benefits. Across the country, the number of people who have been 
unemployed for 6 months or longer has almost doubled from 900,000 to 
1.5 million in the last year. And that number is expected to increase 
to 2.2 million by December.
  And what has Congress done to ease Americans financial burden during 
these uncertain times? We have extended benefits only once. Contrast 
that with the recession of the early 90's when Congress extended 
temporary benefits five times. This year, even in the wake of massive 
terrorist attacks on our own soil, we have extended benefits only once, 
and once is not enough.
  Congress must extend unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment 
assistance, each for an additional 13 weeks. With more people losing 
their benefits every day, these extensions have to be passed before 
Congress adjourns.
  Extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do; 
it is also the smart thing. According to a 1999 Department of Labor 
study, unemployment insurance stimulates the economy. Every dollar 
spent on unemployment insurance adds $2.5 to the Gross Domestic 
Product. Unemployment Insurance acts as a stimulus because it puts 
money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it immediately? 
They have to buy food. They have to pay rent. They have to pay their 
car payments. So the money goes right into the economy, and it provides 
a stimulus.
  Today, the outlook for job seekers is grim. When President Bush took 
office back in January of 2001, there was approximately 1 job seeker 
for every job. In just a little over a year, those numbers have changed 
to nearly 1 job opening for every 3 applicants. The number of people 
who cannot find jobs for six months or longer, has grown by almost 90 
percent in the past year.
  In fact, the share of the unemployed today who have been without work 
for more than 26 weeks exceeds that of the recessions of the early 90s 
and the early 80s. But only looking at the unemployment rate does not 
paint a complete picture of the economy. My constituents describe an 
endless job search--the hopeless feeling that comes from looking for a 
job for months and months without success.
  Two years ago, America was on the right track when it came to the 
economy: 22 million new jobs, budget surpluses, and historic growth. 
For reasons that escape me, we threw all that good work away. Now we're 
back into deficits. We're not creating jobs. And we're not taking care 
of the unemployed.
  It's time for us to extend benefits just as we did during the 
recession in the early 90's, and stimulate the economy. People are 
hurting and they are running out of benefits and they need Congress to 
act now. We must not adjourn until we pass these needed extensions of 
unemployment insurance.
  I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article of September 
20, 2002 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 20, 2002]

                          Helping the Jobless

                      (By Hillary Rodham Clinton)

       For 23 years, Felix Batista rode the elevator up 106 floors 
     to work as a member of the wait staff at the Windows on the 
     World restaurant. On Sept. 11, everything changed. Mr. 
     Batista was on vacation with his family, and that decision 
     saved his life. That day, he lost 73 coworkers and his job.
       While the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks has 
     come and gone, in New York the needs born out of that tragedy 
     remain. Each step that we take--whether it is investing $20.9 
     billion for cleanup and recovery or financing programs to 
     track the health of rescue workers and volunteers at ground 
     zero--will bring New York closer to recovery.
       But today, the city's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 
     8 percent. Across the state, 553,000 New Yorkers are out of 
     work, with company layoffs and plant closings happening 
     everywhere from Niagara Falls to Rochester. Now 135,000 New 
     Yorkers like Mr. Batista have exhausted their unemployment 
     benefits and are struggling to pay their bills.
       At this time last year, 800,000 Americans had been out of 
     work for six months or longer. That number has nearly doubled 
     to 1.5 million and it is expected to increase to more than 2 
     million by December.
       Congress must act quickly to extend unemployment insurance 
     and disaster unemployment assistance, each for an additional 
     13 weeks. With more people losing their benefits every day, 
     these extensions have to be passed before Congress adjourns.
       During the recession of the early 90's, Congress extended 
     temporary benefits five times. This year, even in the wake of 
     massive terrorist attacks on our own soil, we have extended 
     benefits only once, and once is not enough.
       The economy was already in a recession on Sept. 1. It was 
     devastated on Sept. 11, and is stalled now. Some forecasters 
     say we are experiencing a ``jobless recovery''--one in which 
     stockbrokers, electricians, insurance agents, computer 
     technicians, textile workers and restaurant workers have 
     formed lines many blocks long to attend job fairs. New 
     revelations about corporate irresponsibility and illegality 
     have added more doubt to an already weakened economy.
       Extending unemployment insurance would put money into the 
     hands of the very people who will turn right around and put 
     it back into our economy. In 1999, the Department of Labor 
     found that when unemployment insurance is extended, every 
     dollar in benefits generates $2.15 in gross domestic product. 
     Giving more purchasing power to the more than 8 million 
     Americans who are currently unemployed would be a powerful 
     stimulus for our economy.
       After Sept. 11, it was clear we needed a serious push for 
     homeland security. Now we need to restore a measure of 
     economic security to all Americans, and extending 
     unemployment benefits is a responsible and affordable way to 
     do so.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 3011. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to establish 
programs to encourage economic growth in the United States, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the MEGA Safe 
Act. Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Safety Improvements.
  Safer roads save lives. Improving traffic and roadway safety is one 
of the biggest challenges facing the government today. Traffic deaths 
are consistently one of the top ten causes of deaths each year. 
Accidents involving motor vehicles affect all of us.

[[Page S9431]]

  This bill is only a beginning in our Nation's efforts to curb roadway 
accidents and deaths, in a way that best addresses the needs of our 
States.
  A large cause of accidents is the poor quality of signs in and around 
crosswalks, school and bicycle crossings. Highway signs marking 
pedestrian, bicycle, and school zone crossings help to alert motorists 
to the increased risks associated with these locations.
  This bill establishes a grant program to improve safety at 
pedestrian, school and bicycle crossings by marking them with 
fluorescent yellow-green, signs. FYG signs are currently the most 
reflective signs available.
  The Secretary of Transportation is directed to set aside $25 million 
each fiscal year from the Surface Transportation Program to finance 
these safety improvement grants. The funds may be obligated for 
eligible projects located on any public road.
  I've been hearing from County Commissioners from Montana as well as 
other States, about how much they need direct funding for local roads. 
These localities are hard pressed for funds and many of these roads are 
unsafe. This bill would establish a pilot program, at $200 million 
annually from fiscal year 2004-2009, to address safety on rural local 
roads. Funds could be used only on local roads and rural minor 
collectors, roads that are not Federal-aid highways.
  The program does not affect distribution of funds among States, as 
funds will be distributed to each of the 50 States in accord with their 
relative formula share under 23 U.S.C. 105. Funds could be used only 
for projects or activities that have a safety benefit. By January 1, 
2009 the Secretary of Transportation is to report on progress under the 
provision and whether any modifications are recommended.
  This bill takes a different approach to the issue of aggressive 
driving. Rather than sanctioning drivers who display aggressive 
behavior, this section seeks to lessen that negative behavior by 
removing some of the frustration that causes that behavior.
  This section applies to all Federal interstates. It names the left 
lane as the ``National Passing Lane.'' It requires all vehicles to use 
the left lane for passing only. It further requires that all drivers 
allow other vehicles to pass them in the left lane. I believe that one 
of the big frustrations of drivers in this country is being held up by 
someone going slow in the left lane. It contributes to driver 
aggression and to congestion. The MEGA Safe Act seeks to alleviate 
that.
  An amount of no less than $1 million will be given to each State each 
year of the bill, 6 years, to educate the driving public about this new 
law and the proper behavior.
  Each State will decide how to best enforce this law, for example, 
enforcement of ticketable offenses such as if a driver does not allow 
another to pass or the driver is holding up the left lane with a line 
of cars behind him.
  Additionally, the bill funds a study to make recommendations on 
instituting measures that will help the federal government and states 
teach motorists and truck drivers how to effectively share the road 
with each other.
  Recently the American Automobile Association, AAA, unveiled a study 
that shows that the majority of highway crashes that involved trucks 
are caused by the car or cars involved.
  MEGA Safe would give $1 million to the American Trucking 
Associations, ATA, and AAA to issue a report making recommendations on 
how the Federal and State governments can better teach car drivers and 
more carriers how to share the road.
  It requires a preliminary report in a year and the final report a 
year later.
  Finally, the MEGA Safe Act would address Work Zone Safety by ensuring 
that, for each project that uses Federal funds, a trained and certified 
person would be given the responsibility for assuring that the traffic 
control plan is effectively administered. This would help reduce the 
number of deaths occurring in work zone safety areas.
  The MEGA Safe Act is by no means a comprehensive safety proposal, but 
I believe that these ideas are a good foundation for our safety 
policies as we embark on the Reauthorization of TEA 21.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 3012. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from income and employment taxes and wage withholding property tax 
rebates and other benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and 
emergency medical responders; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague 
Senator Lieberman to introduce legislation that would amend the 
Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements, provided by 
local governments to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical 
responders, from the definition of income and wages. Last week, 
Congressman John Larson of Connecticut, the chief author of this 
proposal, introduced identical legislation in the House.
  This bill would allow local governments around the country the 
opportunity to provide incentives, such as property tax abatements, to 
their volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. These 
incentives will help local governments recruit local volunteer 
firefighters and emergency medical responders in order to ensure their 
communities are adequately prepared to respond to emergencies.
  Police officers, firefighters, and emergency service workers are 
America's front-line defenders in the face of fires, medical 
emergencies, terrorist threats, incidents with hazardous materials and 
other emergencies. Many of them are salaried employees of their 
respective State or local government. Many of them are volunteers, as 
well. Many States and localities lack adequate resources to recruit 
these vital public servants and therefore to fully respond to the full 
range of possible threats this country faces.
  Many small towns cannot afford full-time paid firefighters, therefore 
a majority of municipalities and counties throughout the country depend 
on volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency service workers to 
cover their front lines. Every day, volunteers throughout the country 
make a commitment, on top of their work schedules, to put their lives 
on the line for their communities. Volunteer firefighters comprise 75 
percent of firefighters in our country. Unfortunately, statistics show 
that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency responders have 
been declining over the years at an alarming rate. The number of 
volunteer firefighters around the country has declined by 5 to 10 
percent since 1983, while the number of emergency calls made has 
sharply increased.
  Many local governments recruit and retain volunteer firefighters and 
emergency service workers by offering volunteers a property tax 
abatement that directly reduces their property taxes. For example, 
Connecticut enacted a law in 1999 allowing municipalities to offer 
abatements of up to $1,000 per year on local taxes to firefighters, 
emergency medical technicians, paramedics or ambulance drivers. This 
abatement has helped local fire department in their volunteer 
recruitment efforts throughout the state.
  Despite these successful recruitment efforts, the IRS recently ruled 
that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages 
and income. This ruling would pose real hardship on firefighters and 
the communities where they live and work, in Connecticut and in many 
other States, as well. While State and local governments are working to 
increase incentives to volunteer, this ruling would undermine those 
efforts. Some may argue that volunteering for the community should be 
without any compensation, including abatements. However, the reality is 
that when both heads of household hold full-time employment, it is 
often too difficult for them to take time away from their families 
without some form of compensation. A $1,000 property tax break is not a 
large request for the great service these men and women provide to our 
communities. These men and women risk their lives for others. The least 
we can do is allow states and towns to offer them modest incentives to 
serve. For some, counting this abatement as income may put them in a 
higher tax bracket, therefore forcing them to pay substantially more in 
taxes. Also, because of the extra paperwork required and costs due to 
the IRS decision, some municipalities are having to reconsider 
providing abatement programs. For many towns and municipalities it 
would be entirely too expensive to have to both pay FICA taxes,

[[Page S9432]]

and lose property tax revenues. Municipalities across the nation have 
enough trouble recruiting volunteer firefighters and emergency medical 
personnel without also having to face obstacles from the IRS.
  This ruling undermines the good intentions and creative efforts of 
many localities. If our municipalities are willing to forgo their local 
tax revenues in order to ensure they have enough volunteer firefighters 
and emergency service providers to protect their communities, and if 
members of the community are doing their part by volunteering, then we, 
the Federal government, should do our part and support local efforts to 
ensure that all our communities have adequate protection.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation 
so that we can ensure that state and local governments have the 
flexibility to design and implement recruiting and retention programs 
that benefit not only the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical 
providers, but also the communities they protect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 3013. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to extend 
and modify the reimbursement of State and local funds expended for 
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my good 
friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill to address a 
critical issue affecting our State, and other border States. Today we 
are introducing the Local Emergency Health Services Reimbursement Act 
of 2002 in order to provide appropriate Federal reimbursement to States 
and localities whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the 
emergency health costs associated with illegal immigration.
  Arizona and other border States now face a medical and financial 
crisis. A report released today by the U.S./Mexico Border Counties 
Coalition found that our Nation's border hospitals spent close to $190 
million in 2000 to provide health care to illegal immigrants--$31 
million of which was spent by hospitals in Arizona alone. Clearly, the 
staggering cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants further 
burdens an already challenged medical system.
  The Federal Government maintains the sole authority to control 
immigration in this country. Despite that fact, the Federal Government 
often fails to take financial responsibility for the costs associated 
with immigration. Much of the financial burden has shifted to State and 
local governments.
  Compounding the problem, Federal law requires hospital emergency 
rooms to accept and treat all patients in need of medical care, 
regardless of immigration status. Unfortunately, this mandate does not 
ensure that these hospitals receive adequate compensation for the care 
they provide. Recently, this growing problem in the Southwest has been 
exacerbated by the increasingly desperate measures taken by 
undocumented aliens to cross our border with Mexico.
  The Local Emergency Health Services Reimbursement Act of 2002 would 
modify and extend federal funding to the States, local governments, and 
health care providers for medical costs that arise from the 
uncompensated treatment of illegal immigrants. Such funding previously 
flowed to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. 
territories. In fiscal year 2000 alone, approximately 360 local 
jurisdictions across the United States applied for these Federal 
monies. However these funds expired in 2001, and States and local 
governments are now suffering as a result.
  I have long worked to bolster enforcement against illegal immigration 
along our Southwest border, and I will continue to do so. However, I 
believe that States and local communities should not be left to foot 
the bill for what is a Federal responsibility. Although our bill gives 
special consideration to States with unusually high concentrations of 
illegal aliens and States with high concentrations of apprehended 
undocumented aliens, it would benefit communities across the Nation. As 
my colleagues know, illegal immigrants who successfully transit our 
Southwest border rapidly disperse throughout the United States. 
Although this situation is most critical in our border regions, if left 
unaddressed, it will surely become a national emergency. I hope the 
Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to 
alleviate those pressures by compensating State and local governments 
and health care providers for the costs they incur as unwitting hosts 
to undocumented aliens.
  Mr. KYL. 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. 3013

       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 ``Local Emergency Health 
     Services Reimbursement Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES 
                   FURNISHED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

       Section 4723 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (8 U.S.C. 
     1611 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4723. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY HEALTH 
                   SERVICES FURNISHED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

       ``(a) Total Amount Available for Allotment.--There is 
     appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2007, for the purpose of making allotments under this 
     section to States described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) State Allotments.--
       ``(1) Based on highest number of undocumented aliens.--
       ``(A) Determination of allotments.--
       ``(i) In general.--Out of the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall use 
     $134,000,000 of such amount to compute an allotment for each 
     such fiscal year for each of the 17 States with the highest 
     number of undocumented aliens.
       ``(ii) Formula.--The amount of such allotment for each such 
     State for a fiscal year shall bear the same ratio to the 
     total amount available for allotments under this paragraph 
     for the fiscal year as the ratio of the number of 
     undocumented aliens in the State in the fiscal year bears to 
     the total of such numbers for all such States for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(iii) Availability of funds.--The amount of an allotment 
     provided to a State under this paragraph for a fiscal year 
     that is not paid out under subsection (c) shall be available 
     for payment during the subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(B) Data.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the number 
     of undocumented aliens in a State shall be determined based 
     on estimates of the resident undocumented alien population 
     residing in each State prepared by the Statistics Division of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service as of October 1992 
     (or as of such later date if such date is at least 1 year 
     before the beginning of the fiscal year involved).
       ``(2) Based on number of undocumented alien apprehension 
     states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall use 
     $66,000,000 of such amount to compute an allotment for each 
     such fiscal year for each of the 6 States with the highest 
     number of undocumented alien apprehensions for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(B) Determination of allotments.--The amount of such 
     allotment for each such State for a fiscal year shall bear 
     the same ratio to the total amount available for allotments 
     under this paragraph for the fiscal year as the ratio of the 
     number of undocumented alien apprehensions in the State in 
     the fiscal year bears to the total of such numbers for all 
     such States for such fiscal year.
       ``(C) Data.--For purposes of this paragraph, the highest 
     number of undocumented alien apprehensions for a fiscal year 
     shall be based on the 4 most recent quarterly apprehension 
     rates for undocumented aliens in such States, as reported by 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
       ``(D) Availability of funds.--The amount of an allotment 
     provided to a State under this paragraph for a fiscal year 
     that is not paid out under subsection (c) shall be available 
     for payment during the subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as prohibiting a State that is described in both 
     of paragraphs (1) and (2) from receiving an allotment under 
     both such paragraphs for a fiscal year.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall pay, from the 
     allotments made for a State under paragraphs (1) and, if 
     applicable, (2) of subsection (b) for a fiscal year, to each 
     State and directly to local governments, hospitals, or other 
     providers located in the State (including providers of 
     services received through an Indian Health Service facility

[[Page S9433]]

     whether operated by the Indian Health Service or by an Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization (as defined in section 4 of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act)) that provide 
     uncompensated emergency health services furnished to 
     undocumented aliens during that fiscal year, such amounts 
     (subject to the total amount available from such allotments) 
     as the State, local governments, hospitals, or providers 
     demonstrate were incurred for the provision of such services 
     during that fiscal year.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Hospital.--The term `hospital' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(e)).
       ``(2) Provider.--The term `provider' includes a physician, 
     any other health care professional licensed under State law, 
     and any other entity that furnishes emergency health 
     services, including ambulance services.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' means the 50 States and the 
     District of Columbia.
       ``(e) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents 
     the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the 
     payment of amounts provided under this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 3014. A bill for the relief of Jesus Raul Apodaca-Madrid and 
certain of his family members; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3014

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Jesus Raul Apodaca-Madrid and the persons named in section 3, 
     who are members of his family, shall be held and considered 
     to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence as of the date of enactment of this Act 
     upon payment of the required visa fees.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Jesus Raul 
     Apodaca-Madrid and the persons named in section 3, as 
     provided in section 1, the Secretary of State shall instruct 
     the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number during 
     the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas 
     available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL BENEFICIARIES FOR RELIEF.

       The family members of Jesus Raul Apodaca-Madrid named in 
     this section are the following: Adan Apodaca-Bejarano, Maria 
     de Jesus Madrid-Tarango, Francisco Javier Apodaca-Madrid, 
     Alma Delia Apodaca-Madrid, Maria Isabel Apodaca-Madrid, Laura 
     Apodaca-Madrid, and Luis Bernardo Chavez-Apodaca.

                          ____________________