[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 17 (Thursday, January 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1814-S1836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 249. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that
remarriage of the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran after age 55
shall not result in termination of dependency and indemnity
compensation otherwise payable to that surviving spouse; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison and I are reintroducing a bill that will help repay our
Nation's debt to the Gold Star Wives of America.
This bill corrects a long-standing disparity and would finally allow
the widows of veterans who remarry after the age of 55 to continue to
receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. The Gold Star Wives of
America brought this matter to our attention. We are tremendously
grateful to them for working with us on this important bill. At this
time in our Nation's history, when our brave men and women in uniform
are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan and elsewhere around
the world, it is especially important to recognize the wives and
families of those who have already served their country so proudly.
This benefit covers the surviving dependents of members of the Armed
Forces who have died in active duty or of a service-connected cause.
Currently, it is the only Federal annuity program that does not permit
a widow who receives compensation to retain her benefits if she
remarries after the age of 55. It is time for this policy to change.
By eliminating this marriage penalty, our bill will continue to
provide these women the help some need to make ends meet, and will
allow them to live their lives to the fullest. Discouraging marriage
after the age of 55 by making marriage financially burdensome is not
the way to show our appreciation for their sacrifice. Many people live
on fixed incomes and rely on Dependency and Indemnity Compensation to
help pay their bills.
Under our bill, these widows would not be denied their benefits. I
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. It is time
for these inequities to be addressed, so that these women can continue
to receive the benefits they deserve, and also be permitted to
experience again the profound meaning and happiness that marriage
brings.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, to amend title 38,
United States Code, to provide that remarriage of the surviving spouse
of a deceased veteran after age 55 shall not result in termination of
dependency and indemnity compensation otherwise payable to that
surviving spouse, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 249
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RETENTION OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION
FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES REMARRYING AFTER AGE 55.
(a) Exception to Termination of Benefits Upon Remarriage.--
Section 103(d)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``1311 or'' after ``under section''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the
date specified in paragraph (1).
(c) Retroactive Benefits Prohibited.--No benefit may be
paid to any person by reason of the amendment made by
subsection (a) for any period before the effective date
specified in subsection (b).
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 250. A bill to address the international HIV/AIDS pandemic; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to draw the attention of the
Senate and those following this proceeding to a global emergency many
of us believe the last Congress did not adequately address.
Imagine the public reaction that would ensue if every year the United
States lost a population the size of the city of Chicago to HIV/AIDS-
related deaths; if every year the United States lost the number of
children equal to the population of this city, Washington, DC, to HIV/
AIDS-related deaths. This is the reality the world faces.
Imagine how bad the situation would have to be in the United States
for the public to accept an HIV-positive muppet on Sesame Street, the
popular television show geared to little kids ages 2 to 4. This is the
reality of children's TV in South Africa.
In 2001, 662,000 children lost either one or both parents to AIDS in
South Africa.
In 2002, 3 million children, defined as 15 years of age or younger,
were reported to be living with AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa; 800,000
children worldwide were newly infected with HIV last year.
Last weekend I went with several of my colleagues to Haiti. The
reason for that trip had a lot to do with a well-known rock singer
named Bono whose group U2 is legendary in rock-and-roll history. But he
has taken on a special mission, not only to make music, but to make the
world more aware of the HIV/AIDS crisis. He is a very likable fellow.
He has been a great lobbyist. This Irishman comes to Capitol Hill and
opens every door.
In my office, when he came to see me, I couldn't get over how many of
my staffers took a great interest in HIV/AIDS just to be in the room
when he sat down and talked about it. He has done such spectacular work
with Democrats and Republicans, the executive branch, and the
legislative branch. Then he had a tour, which was scheduled about 2 or
3 months ago, in the Midwest. The tour was really to speak to the
heartland of America about this issue of HIV/AIDS. He came to my City
of Chicago. I was proud to meet with him and a group of African
American clergy.
Then he went out to a very conservative piece of real estate near the
City of Chicago, the great Wheaton College. Wheaton College was where
Billy Graham took his training before he went into the ministry.
Wheaton College has a reputation of being pretty conservative, high-
minded in their values, dedicated to their religion and their belief.
And they invited him, this outspoken Irishman, to speak to them about
HIV/AIDS. It was a great presentation.
At the very end there was some music, but most of it was very serious
in that people talked about their life experiences. The thing I
noticed, as the presentation was made, was that one of the doctors
said: You Americans tend to want to look across the ocean for HIV/AIDS.
You have it here in the United States, and don't forget it. But you
also have it in your hemisphere in Haiti in a way that most people
don't even appreciate.
Last weekend I traveled to Haiti with several of my colleagues,
including Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. But the leader of our codel
was Senator Mike DeWine, a Republican of Ohio, and his wife Fran. Let
me just say something for a moment about Mike DeWine. Mike and I had
been friends since we were both elected to the House 20 years ago. He
left for a period of time and ran for Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, then
came back as a Senator from that State.
Most people don't know Mike and his wife and family have a particular
interest and dedication to Haiti and the poor people who live there.
This trip was their eleventh trip to Haiti. Many Members of Congress
are lucky to go to the same place far away once or twice in a lifetime.
Think about the fact that Mike and Fran, people on their staff,
continue to return to one of the poorest places on earth over and over
and over again. It isn't just to take photographs. In fact, they do
very little of that. It is to bring bags of toys and soccer balls,
basic items, medical and otherwise, that the poorest people in our
hemisphere need, to visit programs like one called Hands Together.
Hands Together is something I never heard of before I got to Haiti, but
I met Father Tom Hagan, who is the leader of Hands Together in Haiti,
and Doug Campbell, his executive director, and they showed us a center
which they have created in
[[Page S1815]]
one of the poorest slums on earth. It is called Cite Soleil. My French
translation would be Sun City. But it is not always sunny in this city
for the tens of thousands who live in the worst poverty.
They created this little school and community center to teach
children how to read and write on the condition that their parents also
come in and learn. They provide basic food for these children. They
invite in senior citizens who come in for the only meal of the day that
is worthwhile, and they try to give them some encouragement and maybe
some basic things they need to survive.
They told us a story about the senior citizens being brought to the
center. There is no place for them to go in this terrible slum. When
they first started bringing them in, most were brought in in
wheelbarrows. They could barely walk. The life expectancy in Haiti is
51 years of age. If you are 60 or 70--I met people who are even older--
it is a rarity, but you obviously have some good genetics. But they
were still struggling.
At their center with Hands Together they offered these senior
citizens a basic meal. I saw it. It was beans and rice with a few
little peppers on the top of it, and a vitamin pill. In a matter of
weeks, these same elderly people, who could barely walk and were
brought in in wheelbarrows, were up and moving around, thanks to Hands
Together and to Father Hagan.
There is also the center where the kids are educated, called the
Becky DeWine Center, named after Mike and Fran's late daughter. It is
wonderful to see those children come in in their uniforms, 6 days a
week. They want to be there, learning.
The reason I tell you this as background is that amidst all this
poverty, Haiti faces an AIDS epidemic which is unparalleled in our
hemisphere. When Bono visited Wheaton College, he said to the students:
This is a global crisis. It is in our backyard in the Caribbean. It is
all across Africa. It is moving across India and Russia and China. We
have to do something about it.
It was that piece of information that led me to go to Haiti. I am
glad I did. We set up a meeting at the ambassador's residence.
Ambassador Brian D. Curran is our career ambassador. Previously he had
been the ambassador to Mozambique. He let us meet with Bill Pape, who
is known as ``Dr. Pop'' in the French pronunciation. What an impressive
man. Here was a man who told us how he had decided as a public health
leader in one of the poorest countries to try to eliminate the deaths
of children, infants, from diarrhea, a terrible problem in the Third
World. These poor children, who drink water that is contaminated, get
sick with diarrhea and throwing up, become dehydrated and die.
They put together a program that has virtually eliminated that as a
challenge in Haiti. I am impressed. That is a big undertaking, and a
lot of success was demonstrated. Now Dr. Pape and his organization,
known as GHESKIO, an organization that is one of the earliest in terms
of commitment to dealing with HIV and AIDS, have received a $10
million-plus grant from the Global AIDS Fund to take on the AIDS
epidemic in Haiti. Already he is able to demonstrate on the chart that
just their first year or two of activity, the AIDS rate of infection is
starting to come down ever so gradually. He believes he is on the right
course to deal with this epidemic.
Do you know where the Global AIDS Fund money comes from? Some of it
comes from us, taxpayers who contribute to the Global AIDS Fund. As we
contribute and he is successful, fewer children are infected; fewer
children are orphaned. There is more hope for their future.
I left that visit to Haiti inspired again, as I am every time I visit
some of the poorest places in the world. You might think it is
depressing to see people living in the worst squalor imaginable, to see
them holding beautiful little babies as they stand right next to open
sewers that pigs are rooting through, to see dogs that are so skinny
they can barely walk, to see the living conditions which are so
horrible. You would think that would be so depressing, but you will
find in every one of these places stories of courage, not just the
mothers and fathers struggling to keep the family together, but people
like Father Tom Hagan and Hands Together and Doug Campbell who come
into that setting and say: Let us help.
There are many others. I just mentioned Hands Together. There is
World Vision, CARE, Catholic Relief Services. The list goes on. Thank
goodness they are there. I am glad I had a chance to see it.
When we came back here to Washington, I came back with a renewed
dedication and determination to really work on this issue of global
AIDS.
Today, I am introducing the Global Coordination of HIV/AIDS Response
Act. The 107th Congress failed to pass AIDS authorizing legislation. We
should have. President Bush has said in his State of the Union Address
that AIDS will be a top priority in terms of global health.
I am a proud Democrat. I take exception to many things this President
has done. Let me be the first to stand up and cheer President George W.
Bush. That was the right thing to do. That is the right thing for
America to do. I will be standing by his side whenever he needs me. I
hope we all join him. The United States should lead the world in
fighting this epidemic.
The President said he is going to commit $15 billion over the next 5
years to his new emergency plan for AIDS relief. He said only $10
billion of this is new funds. We need to sit down with OMB and see what
that actually means. The funding sources may be somewhat blurry, but
the commitment was made, and that is a wonderful step forward.
I also want to say that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has
been an exceptional leader on this issue. He has taken grief for it
because it involves some issues of controversy here in the United
States.
Uganda--where I visited several years ago--successfully fought the
AIDS epidemic with what they call the ABC plan, a public health
education plan which doesn't have a lot of money for wonder drugs, but
it has a lot of determination and resources dedicated to fighting AIDS.
The ABC plan is very basic in countries with limited education, limited
resources: A, abstinence when it comes to sexual activities; B, to be
faithful to one partner; C, if you are going to ignore the other two,
use a condom. It is that simple.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has exceeded the 10-minute limit.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been open and candid
about using all of these things to deal with AIDS. When I told him
Senator Mike DeWine and I had been successful on the Senate floor in
putting in $180 billion more on the global AIDS fight, a big smile
crossed his face.
Today, 42 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS--5
million were newly infected last year. We have seen 3.1 million AIDS-
related deaths in 2002. Each year, AIDS deaths claim more than the
entire population of Chicago. Life expectancy has dropped below 40
years of age in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS has already
erased 15 years of progress in the worse affected countries. Despite
our efforts to date, this epidemic continues its deadly spread across
the globe. As the disease spreads, unraveling social structures and
decimating populations, the national security implications for the
United States multiply--in number as well as intensity.
Last year, the National Intelligence Council released a report
supplying grave statistics for ``the next wave.'' In 5 of the world's
most populous countries, the number of HIV-infected people will grow
from 14 million to 23 million currently to an estimated 50 million to
75 million by 2010.
The disease infiltrates national armies, as well as the public
sector, weakening the country's ability to govern and respond to
regional threats. As the number of infections grows, the cost of
fighting HIV/AIDS overwhelms national governments and competes for the
same funds they need to maintain their economy and basic social
structure.
Most governments face a lose-lose situation: Either they fight AIDS
and underfund the infrastructures necessary to sustain continued
immunity, or they continue to build the infrastructures while HIV/AIDS
decimates
[[Page S1816]]
any progress, and they fall victim to it and watch their state crumble.
On every continent, AIDS is traveling along social fault lines and
exploiting the weaknesses, hurting both lives and economies.
HIV/AIDS is a national security issue that is as important to our
time as the war on terrorism. It is an economic issue, a health and
safety issue, and it is a moral issue. Without comprehensive action,
the HIV/AIDS epidemic will worsen, demanding even more attention and
funding. That is why I introduce this bill to reset global AIDS as a
top priority in this Congress.
The main purpose of the bill is to provide a comprehensive response
to the AIDS pandemic and acknowledge the growing need for resources. In
the form of specialized initiatives, my bill will focus on the growing
number of AIDS orphans, the lack of health professionals in AIDS-
ravaged countries, and the lack of access to affordable treatment for
the majority of those afflicted with HIV/AIDS.
I have designed the Global CARE Act to achieve four major goals:
Better coordination of our own agencies in fighting global AIDS; the
provision of programs that address all components necessary to support
a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS, including prevention, treatment,
care, and investment in broader health systems and national economies;
increased accountability for the health and policy objectives we will
seek to achieve with our financial and human investment; and the
ability to mobilize the most effective human capacity-building tools to
address the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Last year, I introduced a version of this bill which authorized $2.5
billion in global AIDS spending for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year
2004, I have proposed authorization levels of $3.35 billion. The United
States, unfortunately, only contributed $1 billion to fighting this
epidemic in 2002. With the passage of the Durbin-DeWine amendment, the
Senate allocated $1.525 billion in its fiscal year 2003 appropriations
bills. This is a breakthrough--a 50-percent increase by the United
States in its commitment.
But these funding levels are still far short of the goal. To meet the
need, our target for fiscal year 2004 should be in the $3.35 billion
range. Frankly, when you look at the world this year, the global need
just to fight HIV/AIDS stands at $8.2 billion. Despite these good
efforts by the United States, we can do more. But other countries in
the world can do more as well. Let them join the President and the
Congress in our commitment to this fight. We have been shortchanging
this epidemic for too long. We take tiny steps in pursuit of a
challenge that is racing away from us.
Because the spread of this disease remains in its infancy, we have to
look at it in more serious terms. We must do more for the 42 million
people worldwide who are living with HIV/AIDS, and we have to
understand that the disease is not going to wait for our political
determination.
A 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80-percent chance of dying
from AIDS. We have to change his future. To do that, the Global CARE
Act addresses this epidemic aggressively and honestly. I hope this bill
will provide a basic blueprint for the United States, and I hope we can
join on a bipartisan basis in passing it. I hope my colleagues who read
my remarks and follow this debate will believe, as I do, that the
President has given us a great opportunity on a bipartisan basis to
stand together and tell the world that this caring Nation is committed
to dealing honestly and effectively with the global AIDS crisis.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Warner, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Burns, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dayton, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Allen, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Inhofe,
and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 253. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code to exempt
qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. I am also especially pleased
to have Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch joining me today as lead
original cosponsors.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act would permit qualified
current and former law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms
across jurisdictions. This legislation has several important benefits.
First, the American pubic will be safer as off-duty and retired law
enforcement officers are allowed to carry concealed weapons as they
travel across jurisdictions. If enacted into law, the basic net effect
of this legislation will be thousands of additional police officers on
the streets, at zero taxpayer expense. There are many examples of off-
duty officers coming to the rescue of American citizens facing dire
situations. Hopefully, with this bill's passage, we will hear about
even more of these stories in the future.
Terrorists and violent criminals certainly will not be happy when
this bill is passed. They will have additional worries, and hopefully
may be deterred, because they will not be sure whether or not seemingly
average citizens are actually off-duty or retired law enforcement
officers who are armed, trained and ready to deal with whatever
situation may arise.
This legislation will also help off-duty and retired law enforcement
officers protect themselves and their families. All too often, after
they are released from prison, violent criminals seek revenge against
the law enforcement officers who helped lock them away. While at a
minimum this legislation will even the playing field for off-duty and
retired law enforcement officers, I hope that it will go further and
actually give them an advantage.
This important law enforcement legislation is especially meaningful
to me for a number of reasons. First of all, through six years of
service as a Deputy Sheriff with Sacramento County, California, I was
able to get first-hand experience with the challenges facing our
nation's law enforcement officers. As a Deputy Sheriff, I have
personally patrolled the streets and encountered plenty of dangerous
characters, far too many of which were armed and dangerous. I also
clearly learned that a law enforcement officer's job does not
necessarily end when he or she is off-duty since you never know when
you may come face-to-face with violent criminals.
Finally, now that I serve as a U.S. Senator, I have made passing pro-
law enforcement legislation one of my top priorities.
Previous versions of this legislation have enjoyed the support of
over one hundred national, state and local law enforcement
organizations. The Fraternal Order of Police is a key leader among
those organizations. For many years now, the FOP has supported passage
of this legislation. I am encouraged that the FOP has made it clear
that we will be working together once again in our efforts to get this
bill passed and signed into law by President Bush. I want to take a
moment to express my appreciation for Chuck Canterbury, National
President of the FOP, the rest of the FOP's professional staff and the
over 300,000 members of the FOP they represent, for the letter of
support for the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.
I am pleased that Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and
Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy are playing vital roles in
advancing this legislation as lead original cosponsors. Over the years,
I have championed a number of legislative initiatives aimed at helping
our nation's law enforcement officers be better supported and protected
as they go about their mission of protecting the American people. These
accomplishments include a public law that continues to help state and
local law enforcement officers acquire life saving bullet-proof vests
and a federal grant-making program that helps our nation's schools
acquire the School Resource Officers they need to reduce the threat of
violence in our public schools. Senators Leahy and Hatch have played
[[Page S1817]]
important roles in getting each of these legislative initiatives
accomplished.
The key goal of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act I am
introducing today has been one of my law enforcement legislative
priorities since I first introduced similar legislation back in 1997
during the 105th Congress. Since that time, I have introduced the
legislation twice more, in 1999 and 2001. Fortunately, the Judiciary
Committee made good progress on conceal carry legislation late last
year before the 107th Congress completed its work for the year. As we
begin anew in the 108th Congress, I hope we will be able to recapture
the momentum and finally get this legislation passed and enacted. Just
as we worked together in past years to get things done, I look forward
to working with Senators Leahy and Hatch to do what it takes to
successfully turn this worthy legislation into the law of the land.
Many years of work and persistence may finally be paying off for all of
us, especially our nation's law enforcement officers.
It is worth noting that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
2003 legislation being introduced here today enjoys the strong
bipartisan support of thirty-one of my fellow Senators as original
cosponsors. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in supporting
the successful passage of this important Campbell-Leahy-Hatch
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am
introducing today, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, and
the Fraternal Order of Police's letter of support, be included in the
Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Grand Lodge,
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, January 24, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of the more than 300,000
members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am writing to
advise you or our strong support for legislation you intend
to introduce to exempt qualified active and retired law
enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions with
respect to the carrying of firearms. The passage of this
legislation has been designated the top legislative priority
of the Fraternal Order of Police and we are proud to have a
former law enforcement officer as the sponsor of this bill.
Having served six years as a Deputy Sheriff in Sacramento
County, you know firsthand the challenges faced by our
nation's law enforcement officers. Police officers put their
lives on the line every day and are trained throughout their
careers to carry and, in worst-case scenarios use, firearms
to defend themselves and the public they are sworn to
protect. However, the bewildering patchwork of laws in the
States often results in a paradox for law enforcement
officers, sometimes placing them in legal and physical
jeopardy. Criminals and terrorists do not disarm themselves
when they travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and
neither should America's police officers.
This is not about firearms--it is about officer safety.
After 11 September 2001, it became an important public safety
and homeland security issue as well.
The danger inherent to police work and the possibility than
an officer will need to respond to an emergency situation
does not end with the shift. Criminals and terrorists are
never off-duty, making law enforcement officers targets in
uniform and out, on duty and off, active or retired. The
legislation you intend to offer will give us the ability to
defend ourselves at all times by providing qualified active
and retired law enforcement officers with the authority to
carry their firearms in all U.S. jurisdictions, so long as
they have photographic identification issued by the agency
for which they are or were employed.
I applaud you for your leadership and you continuing
efforts on behalf of our nation's law enforcement officers.
It is our hope that we will finally be able to get a bill to
the President's desk in this Congress, and we look forward to
working with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to
contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my
Washington office if we can be of any assistance on this or
any other matter.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
S. 253
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 ``Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM
STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF
CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the
following:
``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law
enforcement officers
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who
is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying
the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a
concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or
limit the laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their
property; or
``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property, installation,
building, base, or park.
``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law
enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental
agency who--
``(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or
the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law,
and has statutory powers of arrest;
``(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
``(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency;
``(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of
a firearm; and
``(5) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
``(d) The identification required by this subsection is the
photographic identification issued by the governmental agency
for which the individual is, or was, employed as a law
enforcement officer.
``(e) Defined Term.--As used in this section, the term
`firearm' does not include--
``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of title
26);
``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); and
``(3) any destructive device (as defined in section
921).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 926A the following:
``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement
officers.''.
SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE
CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the
following:
``Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified
retired law enforcement officers
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who
is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is
carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may
carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to
subsection (b).
``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or
limit the laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their
property; or
``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property, installation,
building, base, or park.
``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired
law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
``(1) retired in good standing from service with a public
agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons
of mental instability;
``(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to
engage in or supervise the prevention, detection,
investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any
person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of
arrest;
``(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as
a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or
more; or
``(B) retired from service with such agency, after
completing any applicable probationary period of such
service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined
by such agency;
``(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
retirement plan of the agency;
``(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at
the expense of the individual, the State's standards for
training and qualification for active law enforcement
officers to carry firearms; and
``(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
``(d) The identification required by this subsection is
photographic identification issued by the agency for which
the individual was employed as a law enforcement officer.
``(e) Defined Term.--As used in this section, the term
`firearm' does not include--
``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of title
26);
``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); and
``(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921).''.
[[Page S1818]]
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is further amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 926B the following:
``926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law
enforcement officers.''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Campbell to
introduce the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003,'' which
permits current and retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm
and be prepared to assist in dangerous situations. During his time in
the Senate, Senator Campbell has been a leader in the area of law
enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the difficulties law
enforcement officers face due to the patchwork of conceal-carry laws in
State and local jurisdictions. He and I have worked together on several
pieces of law enforcement legislation, such as the Bulletproof Vests
Partnership Grant Acts of 1998 and 2000. I look forward to working with
him on our bipartisan bill.
I am pleased that 30 Senators, including Judiciary Committee Chairman
Hatch and Committee Members Schumer, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Kyl,
Sessions, DeWine, Craig, Graham, and Cornyn, as well as Assistant
Democratic Leader Reid and Assistant Republican Leader McConnell--have
joined Senator Campbell and me as original cosponsors of this bill in
an effort to make our communities safer and better to protect law
enforcement officers and their families. In the last Congress, Senator
Hatch and I worked together to reach consensus and have the Judiciary
Committee approve this legislation by an 18-1 vote. I thank Senator
Hatch for his past support and look forward to working with him again
on our bipartisan bill.
We introduce this measure in the Senate at the request of the
Fraternal Order of Police, which strongly supports this legislation to
protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals and to
permit officers to respond immediately to a crime when off duty. Last
year, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee, I was honored to work
closely with FOP's National President, Lt. Steve Young, whose death
earlier this month was a sad loss for all of us. Steve was dedicated to
this legislation because he understood the importance of having law
enforcement officers across the nation armed and prepared whenever and
wherever threats to our peace or to our public safety arise. I will
continue my close work with the FOP and its new National President,
Major Chuck Canterbury, to pass this legislation into law.
There are approximately 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers
currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded police
death in 1792, there have been more than 16,400 law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,694 law enforcement
officers died in the line of duty over the last decade, an average of
170 deaths per year. Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed
taking law enforcement action while in an off-duty capacity. On
average, more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each
year, resulting in some 21,000 injuries.
Until 2001, violent crime in this country had declined each of the
preceding 8 years. Indeed, it had declined by 40 percent since it
peaked at 4 million violent crimes in 1993. Community policing and the
outstanding work of so many law enforcement officers played a vital key
in our crime control efforts. Unfortunately, during the past two years
the downward trend in violent crime ended and violent crime turned
upward. Last month, the FBI reported that crime rose slightly in the
first half of 2002, including a 2.3 percent increase in murders. The
preliminary numbers for 2002 follow an increase in crime in 2001 that
was the first in a decade, coinciding with a struggling economy that
many experts say could be a contributing factor. Crime rose in 2001 by
2.1 percent, compared with the year before.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 is designed to
protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals and to
allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified law enforcement
officers, whether on or off duty or retired, to carry concealed
firearms in most situations, thus enabling them to respond immediately
to a crime. Our bipartisan bill will allow thousands of equipped,
trained and certified law enforcement officers continually to serve and
protect our communities, regardless of jurisdiction, and at no cost to
taxpayers.
To qualify for the bill's uniform standards a law enforcement officer
must be authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where
he or she works, meet the standards of the agency to regularly use a
firearm, not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and
be carrying a photo identification issued by the agency.
A qualified retired law enforcement officer under the bill must have
retired in good standing, have been qualified by the agency to carry or
use a firearm, have been employed at least 15 years as a law
enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a service-connected
disability, have a nonforfeitable right to retirement plan benefits of
the law enforcement agency, annually meet State firearms training and
qualifications that are the same as active law enforcement officers,
not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be
carrying a photo identification issued by the agency.
I have heard from many representatives of the law enforcement
community, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National
Association of Police Officers, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association, CCPOA, that
national legislation is necessary because of the current patchwork of
state and local conceal-carry laws. I have also received letters of
support for the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act from a variety of
Vermont law enforcement officials, including Chief Osburn Glidden of
Williston, Officer Wade Johnson of Hinesburg, Chief Trevor Whipple of
Barre, Officer Bonnie Hotchkiss of Barre, Sergeant Mike Manning and
Sergeant David Yustin of the Vermont State Police, and nine Field
Supervision Correctional Officers assigned to the Vermont Department of
Corrections Barre Community Correctional Service Center.
As a former State prosecutor, I know that law enforcement Officers
are never ``off-duty.'' They are dedicated public servants trained to
uphold the law and keep the peace. When there is a threat to our public
safety, law enforcement officers are sown to answer that call. The Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act will enable law enforcement officers in
Vermont and across the nation to be armed and prepared when they answer
that call, no matter where, when, or in what form it comes.
I urge my colleagues to support the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act to make our communities safer and to protect law enforcement
officers and their families.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise along with senators Campbell,
Leahy, and others to introduce the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act of 2003''. This bill, which permits qualified current and retired
law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any
jurisdiction, will help protect the American public, our Nation's
officers, and their families. I would note that this bill has the
overwhelming support of the Fraternal Order of Police and other law
enforcement associations.
This legislation allows qualified law enforcement officers and
retired officers to carry, with appropriate identification, a concealed
firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce regardless of State or local laws. Importantly, this
legislation does not supersede any State law that permits private
persons to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State
or local government properties, installations, buildings, bases or
parks. Additionally, this bill clearly defines what is meant by
``qualified law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired, or
former, law enforcement officer'' to ensure that those individuals
permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly trained professionals.
Such legislation not only will provide law enforcement officers with
a legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel
interstate, it will also enhance the security of the American public.
By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers
to carry firearms, even if
[[Page S1819]]
off-duty, more trained law enforcement officers will be on the street
to enforce the law and to respond to crises.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the passage of this
important piece of legislation to provide that extra layer of
protection to current and retired law enforcement officers, their
families, and the public.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 254. A bill to revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park in the State of Hawaii, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Kaloko-
Honokohau National Historical Park Addition Act of 2003. This bill
passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I
hope that it will receive quick approval again in the 108th Congress.
The legislation provides for a small adjustment of the Park's
boundaries to permit the purchase of permanent facilities for Park
administrative purposes and to provide visitors with a modest
interpretive center that will help them understand the cultural and
historical treasures of the Park.
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is located along the
beautiful Kona coast on the island of Hawaii. It was designated as a
National Historic Landmark in 1962 and was established as a National
Historical Park in 1978. The Park was created to preserve, interpret,
and perpetuate traditional Native Hawaiian culture. The ocean makes up
over half of this 1,160-acre Park, and the boundaries include the
culturally significant Kaloko and `Aimakapa fishponds and `Ai`opio fish
trap. There are also several heiau, or Native Hawaiian religious sites,
found in the Park.
In 2001, 54,000 people visited Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical
Park, and the number of visitors continues to increase. In 2002, 70,000
people visited the Park, an increase of 16,000 visitors. We need a
facility there that offers administrative personnel the space and the
resources they need to carry out their management functions, and
provides visitors with the opportunity to learn about this important
part of Hawaii. Rather than erecting a new building and disturbing the
resources within Park boundaries, the better option is to locate the
facilities nearby on an already-developed parcel. The bill provides a
simple, cost-effective solution to the important problems of growing
visitorship and the need to provide adequate stewardship of cultural
resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate
and in Hawaii to make this possible.
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. 254
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Kaloko-Honokohau National
Historical Park Addition Act of 2003.''
SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK.
Section 505(a) of P.L. 95-625 (16 U.S.C. 396d(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In order'' and inserting ``(a)(1) In
order'';
(2) by striking ``1978,'' and all that follows and
inserting ``1978.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) The boundaries of the park are modified to include
lands and interests therein comprised of Parcels 1 and 2
totaling 2.14 acres, identified as `Tract A' on the map
entitled `Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Proposed
Boundary Adjustment', numbered PWR (PISO) 466/82,043 and
dated April 2002.
``(3) The maps referred to in this subsection shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the appropriate
offices of the National Park Service.''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 255. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to require
phased increases in the fuel efficiency standards applicable to light
trucks; to require fuel economy standards for automobiles up to 10,000
pounds gross vehicle weight; to increase the fuel economy of the
Federal fleet of vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Snowe,
Collins, Cantwell, Corzine, Dodd, Durbin, Jeffords, Leahy, Murray,
Reed, Clinton, and Schumer in introducing legislation to increase
Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, CAFE, Standards for SUVs and other
light duty trucks.
This bill will close the ``SUV Loophole,'' and require that SUVs meet
the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars by 2011.
Simply put, this legislation is the single most important step the
United States can take to limit dependence on foreign oil and better
protect our environment.
If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: Save the U.S. 1
million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on foreign oil
imports by 10 percent. Prevent about 240 million tons of carbon
dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global
warming from entering the atmosphere each year. Save SUV and light duty
truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.
CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light
trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road,
they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger
cars.
Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks
comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States.
As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the
lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for
these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger
vehicles.
The bill we are introducing today would change that, SUVs and other
light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements
by 2011 that passenger cars meet today.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has
proposed phasing in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and
light trucks under the following schedule: by 2005, SUVs and light
trucks would have to average 21.0 miles per gallon; by 2006, SUVs and
light trucks would have to average 21.6 miles per gallon; and by 2007,
SUVs and light trucks would have to average 22.2 miles per gallon.
Last year, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report
stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases
in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if
existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs
and light trucks.
And earlier this month, the head of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel
economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into
effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an
interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here
is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without
compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.
With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule
which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and
remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically
feasible over the next decade or so: by 2008, SUVs and light duty
vehicles would have to average 23.5 miles per gallon; by 2009, SUVs and
light duty vehicles would have to average 24.8 miles per gallon; by
2010, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 26.1 miles per
gallon, by 2011, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average
27.5 miles per gallon.
This legislation would do two other things: 1. It would mandate that
by 2007 the average fuel economy of the new vehicles comprising the
Federal fleet must be 3 miles per gallon higher than the baseline
average fuel economy for that class. And by 2010, the average fuel
economy of the new federal vehicles must be 6 miles per gallon higher
than the baseline average fuel economy for that class.
[[Page S1820]]
2. The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are
bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers
to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards.
Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large
that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.
We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the
United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against
global warming.
The International Panel on Climate Change, estimates that the Earth's
average temperature could rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next 100
years, the most rapid change in 10,000 years.
This would have a major effect on our way of life. It would melt the
polar ice caps, decimate our coastal cities, and cause global climate
change.
We are already seeing the effects of warming: In November, the Los
Angeles Times published an article about the vanishing glaciers of
Glacier National Park in Montana. Over a century ago, 150 of these
magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high cliffs and jagged peaks
of the surrounding mountains of the park. Today, there are only 35. And
these 35 glaciers that remain today are disintegrating so quickly that
scientists estimate the park will have no glaciers in 30 years.
This melting seen in Glacier National Park can also be seen around
the world, from the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice
fields beneath Mt. Everest in the Himalayas. Experts also predict that
glaciers in the high Andes, the Swiss Alps, and even Iceland could
disappear in coming decades as well. These dwindling glaciers offer the
clearest and most visible sign of climate change in America and the
rest of the world.
Yet, the Administration has walked away from the negotiating table
for the Kyoto Protocol. This is a big mistake. The United States is now
the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's
population using 25 percent of the planet's energy. We should be a
leader when it comes to combating global warming.
The single most effective action our nation can take to limit
reliance on foreign oil and reduce global warming is to increase the
fuel efficiency of our vehicles. The simplest way to do this is to
simply bring the fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and sport
utility vehicles, SUVs, into conformance with other passenger vehicles.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feinstein
today in renewing the call we made in the 107th Congress for improving
vehicle fuel economy by taking logical steps to close the SUV loophole
provided to the ``light truck'' category in the Federal Corporate
Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, Program.
My colleague has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I
am proud to work with her again in introducing S. 255, our practical,
attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to
address this national imperative this year. I know when we introduced
our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others
felt it didn't go far enough. But can anyone honestly say we are better
off today without nothing? That we are in better shape because we
failed to pass what is possible 2 years ago?
Just think about where we would be today, we would be a model year
away from giving consumers greater choices in purchasing more fuel
efficient SUVs. And we would also be that much closer to controlling
our own energy destiny by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, all the
more critical at a time when the current strike in Venezuela and the
situation in Iraq make already volatile world oil markets even more
precarious. As an oil analyst with the Deutsche Bank in London recently
put it, ``The oil markets can stand having one thing go wrong, but not
two. That's what's happening with Venezuela and Iraq.''
And it is not as though we haven't been burned by the foreign oil
market before. It is not as though this is something we have never
thought of. This year is the 30th anniversary of the Arab oil embargo.
I recall in the 1970s when the day you were allowed to refuel your car
was determined by whether the last number of your license plate was odd
or even. Why hasn't any of this been enough to wean us off this habit?
Right now, we rely more on foreign oil than ever. In 2001, 55 percent
of the U.S. total demand was met by oil from abroad, up from 37 percent
in 1980 around the time when the original CAFE standards took effect, I
might add, and by 2025 that number will jump to a projected 70 percent
if we don't take action. With such a large percentage of this imported
resource coming from such a volatile region of the world, what do we
need to have happen before we feel a sense of urgency?
The fact is, this is an emergency, and we can make a difference. Even
just increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks by 1.5
miles per gallon by model year 2007, which the administration proposes,
would reduce gasoline consumption by 2.5 billion gallons through that
year. Just imagine what we could achieve with the proposal Senator
Feinstein and I are re-introducing, which would phase-in changes in
CAFE requirements in four, attainable stages that will bring the
standards for SUV's in line with passenger cars within the next 8
years.
Our legislation is backed by the findings of a 2001 National Academy
of Sciences CAFE report that this body requested in 2000 on CAFE
standards. The report clearly states that, ``Because of concerns about
greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is
appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels
beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.''
I believe that fuel economy through better vehicle mileage is
probably the most significant and realistic environmental and energy
independence issue we, as leaders, could tackle this year in developing
our Nation's energy policy. Had the Senate boosted fuel economy
standards over a decade ago as proposed by Senators Bryan and Gorton
rather than defeating the measure by three votes, new vehicles would be
averaging 33 miles per gallon today instead of 24.5 miles per gallon,
and the U.S. would have saved more than 1 billion barrels of oil each
and every day.
Instead, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil,
while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the
greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in
perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emission just from U.S.
vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide
emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we
continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air
than our passenger cars?
And it is not just an environmental issue, it is also a pocketbook
issue, with rising prices at the pump. In fact, according to DOE's
Energy Information Administration, the typical price for regular
unleaded gas, now $1.47 per gallon, is a full 37 cents higher than just
a year ago. Yet ironically, in the past quarter century since the last
adjustments were made to CAFE standards, overall fuel economy has
actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980, 24.7 miles per gallon.
Just think for a moment how much the world has changed
technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the
home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our
automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers
to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have
also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going
to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have
the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy?
Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of
Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request
the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it
was possible to achieve a more than 40-percent improvement particularly
in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period, and that
technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was a year-and-
a-half ago.
But, automakers have instead invested their new technologies in other
attributes over the past 13 years. Specifically, there has been a 53-
percent increase in horsepower, a 19-percent increase in weight, an 18-
percent increase
[[Page S1821]]
for acceleration and, correspondingly, a minus eight percent decrease
for fuel economy. The bottom line is that the auto industry has had the
technological opportunities to do better but chose another road. They
tell us this is what the consumer wants.
But maybe that is because, for the most part, consumers haven't been
presented with viable alternatives. Indeed, a March 2002 poll by the
Mellman Group shows that nearly three-quarters of voters nationwide
favor increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Another survey
conducted since 9/11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., showed
that 88 percent of likely voters support increasing the fuel efficiency
standards for cars and trucks.
We have seen what a positive difference changes in CAFE standards can
make. The NAS panel experts found that, as a result of CAFE standards
put into law by Congress in 1975, we have achieved a 75-percent
increase in fuel economy for cars. Cars went from 15.8 mpg in 1975 to
27.5 mpg in 1985. And, through CAFE standards, we have seen a 50-
percent increase for light trucks, from 13.7 mpg in 1975 to 20.7 mpg in
1987. In addition, NAS noted that CAFE helped maintain fuel economy
levels when market forces might have forced fuel economy lower in the
passenger fleet.
I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that
time forgot?'', and history clearly shows that the Federal Government
must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles
with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and
a minimal impact on our environment. How can we do anything less?
Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve these goals, and it is an
idea whose time has long since arrived.
When I think back to the balanced budget debate in the Senate, many
of us argued that continued deficits would leave the generations to
come with mountains of debt, and we had an obligation to ensure that
this did not happen. Today, I say to you that we have a similar
obligation to take practical steps, to make practical tradeoffs to
ensure that generations to come won't be left with a mountain of carbon
dioxide emissions, with an even greater dependency on foreign oil, with
even higher prices at the pump, and with fewer of our precious natural
resources.
I urge my colleagues to take the responsible road and support the
Feinstein-Snowe CAFE standards incremental increases for SUVs and the
light truck category as the right direction to take.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 258. A bill to amend the definition of low-income families for
purposes of the United States Housing Act of 1937; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to bring the Senate's
attention to a matter that is slowing Los Alamos County, NM, in its
efforts to fully recover from the Cerro Grande Fire of May 10, 2000.
The Cerro Grande fire severely reduced available housing in Los
Alamos. Indeed, a major deterrent to new hires is the lack of housing
choices in the city. The housing market is even tighter because of the
loss of about 400 housing units through the devastating Cerro Grande
Fire. Los Alamos has a population of about 18,000 people.
While we have Federal programs to help low and moderate income
Americans find good housing, in Los Alamos these programs are
ineffective due to the current practice of averaging Los Alamos County
and Santa Fe County incomes into one Metropolitan Statistical Area,
MSA. This is harmful to Los Alamos residents, where the median income
is about $82,000 because the Federal programs use the MSA median income
of about $65,000 to determine participation. Eighty percent of median
income is a standard measure.
Santa Fe's median income of about $40,000 thus becomes a significant
factor for a Los Alamos teacher, fireman, or policeman seeking
subsidized Federal assistance. Their incomes in Los Alamos are deemed
to be too high to qualify for housing because 80 percent of $65,00 is
used as the maximum allowed for assistance. Thus, $52,000 becomes the
effective ceiling for assistance, when the actual 80 percent ceiling
figure for Los Alamos incomes is about $65,000. This makes a huge
difference in a high-priced and competitive market. The result is that
developers are discouraged from applying for tax credits and other
assistance programs because their applicants do not qualify to live in
their new or remodeled housing projects.
The Los Alamos County Manager reports that not a single County
employee is eligible for housing created by the Low Income Housing Tax
Credits. He, like many residents and the LANL recruiting effort, remain
concerned that the limited housing supply has raised rents and sales
prices. Los Alamos County is also landlocked by federal government land
ownership.
There is a desperate need for affordable housing at a time when, once
again, our nation is calling upon LANL for helping to meet its internal
and international security needs.
This situation also exists around the New York City area, where
Westchester County incomes unfairly raise the metropolitan average to
the detriment of the metropolitan housing market. In that case,
Congress agreed to separate Westchester County to ease the housing
market situation. All I am asking in my bill is to accomplish the same
goal by allowing Los Alamos County to stand on its own in terms of HUD
median income requirements. My bill does not simultaneously lower the
Santa Fe County income to its actual median, but, rather, allows Santa
Fe County to continue to use the higher median, because the Santa Fe
housing market is also very unusual, and the two-county average helps
make more Santa Fe residents eligible for federal assistance on many
fronts.
I appreciate my colleagues attention to this matter, and I know the
residents of Los Alamos County will be grateful for this assistance to
allow more of them to make use of available HUD and other affordable
housing assistance programs.
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. 258
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOW-INCOME FAMILIES DEFINITION.
Section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and for Los Alamos County in the State
of New Mexico,'' after ``State of New York,'';
(2) by inserting ``, Los Alamos,'' after ``does not include
Westchester'';
(3) by inserting ``, Los Alamos,'' after ``portion included
Westchester''; and
(4) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and Los Alamos County, New Mexico, in the
Santa Fe metropolitan area''.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 260. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent
the continued use of renouncing United States citizenship as a device
for avoiding United States taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow and I are introducing
legislation similar to the measure we proposed in the last Congress to
effectively prevent very rich individuals from reducing their taxes by
renouncing the U.S. citizenship. It is a companion to a measure
introduced by Congressman Charles Rangel in 2002. The Joint Tax
Committee estimated that it will raise $656 million over 10 years from
a very few people who I call Benedict Arnolds. These people turn their
back on their country which provided so well for then, in order to
avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes.
Under current law, there are special rules that apply to these former
citizens that appear to recover funds lost to the Treasury. However,
they are full of holes. Under the current regime, for 10 years after a
U.S. citizen renounces his or her citizenship with a principal purpose
of avoiding U.S. taxes, the person is taxed at the rates that would
have applied had he or she remained a citizen. In reality, the tax is
nominally on a broader base of income and on more types of
transactions. In addition, if the expatriate dies within 10 years of
the expatriation, more types of assets are included in his or her
estate. Unfortunately, the reality is that taxes are very often not
paid.
[[Page S1822]]
The reality is that once a person has expatriated and removed U.S.
assets from U.S. jurisdiction, it is extremely difficult to enforce the
current rules, particularly for an entire decade after the citizenship
is renounced. The measure I introduced simply provides that the very
act of renouncing one's citizenship triggers the recognition of tax.
So, rather than collecting tax every time an asset is sold over the
next decade, my bill treats all of the assets of an expatriate as
having been sold the day prior to when the person renounces their
citizenship. The taxes are due up front rather than over time. In
regard to estate taxes, rather than attempting to collect the tax from
the estate of an expatriate not in the U.S. jurisdiction, my measure
taxes the inheritance of an heir who remain in the United States in
such a way as to remove any tax benefit from the renouncement of
citizenship.
$656 million in revenue from these very few former citizens is a lot
of revenue that must be made up by loyal Americans in the form of
higher debt or taxes that Americans will face. Last year, the Senate
passed the measure as a part of the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act
but, unfortunately, the House opposed this provision. I am hopeful that
it can become law this year. People should not be able to reduce their
taxes by renouncing their citizenship.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Reed):
S. 261. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to exclude child care from the determination of the 5-year limit on
assistance under the temporary assistance to needy families program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Reed):
S. 262. A bill to amend the temporary assistance to needy families
program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to improve
the provision of education and job training under that program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 263. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to require a comprehensive strategic plan for the State temporary
assistance to needy families program and to give States the flexibility
to implement innovative welfare programs that have been effective in
other States; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three welfare
bills. Although these bills do not represent a comprehensive welfare
reform proposal, they do address what I see as some of the most
critical and pressing issues we must deal with as we move toward
improving the TANF program.
Let me begin by introducing the Children First Act on behalf of
myself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg
and Mr. Reed).
Since 1996, federal funding for child care assistance under the Child
Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has significantly increased,
making it possible for states to provide more low-income families with
child care assistance and to expand initiatives to improve the quality
of child care. This has been an extremely important endeavor. Access to
high quality childcare is crucial in helping families to work and
children to succeed.
Most people agree that the recent employment gains among welfare
recipients can only be sustained if families have access to dependable
child care. Studies show that when childcare is available and when
families get help in paying for care, they are more likely to work. In
fact, when I talk to people in my home State of New Mexico about
welfare reform, they identify access to childcare as the most important
work support we can provide.
Despite the past increases in the CCDBG, we must do more. Overall,
only one out of seven children eligible for assistance through the
CCDBG program receives a subsidy, leaving approximately 12.9 million
eligible children without assistance. Less than 25 percent of New
Mexican children under the age of six who are eligible for childcare
assistance are currently receiving it. Unfortunately, the need for
childcare assistance is only likely to increase in the near future.
Many states are currently threatened with serious budget shortfalls
that threaten the availability of funds for numerous important
endeavors, including childcare assistance. In addition, the
administration's recently proposed TANF plan includes provisions for
increased work requirements for recipients. If passed, this would
create an increased need for welfare support services, especially
childcare. Without subsidized care, many of our Nation's poor families
simply cannot afford to work.
We must not only seek to increase access to childcare overall, but
also to ensure the improved quality of such care. Currently, many
families receiving assistance cannot provide their children with a high
quality childcare setting. In part, this is because the childcare
reimbursement rates are so low that many of the higher quality
providers do not accept state-subsidized children into their programs.
Low salaries and the lack of health care and other benefits also make
it difficult to attract and retain highly qualified childcare workers.
These are major issues given that quality childcare provides low-income
children with the early learning experiences they need to do well in
school and in life. We know that children in high quality early care
are more likely to experience academic success, for example, higher
test scores and an increased likelihood of graduating from high school,
and less likely to experience social problems such as being charged in
juvenile court or being aggressive toward others.
The Children First Act will address these important issues by
increasing funds for the CCDBG by $11.2 billion over 5 years. With
these funds, States will be able to serve approximately 1 million more
children nationally. The bill also contains an increase in the quality
set-aside in CCDBG, which will provide States with funds that can be
used to train care providers and create and enforce standards of care.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
It will help low-income families work and help prepare our children to
succeed.
Next, I would like to introduce the Education Works Act on behalf of
myself and Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden.
Since the 1996 changes in our welfare laws, the number of individuals
on welfare has dramatically decreased in most States. However, although
many have successfully left welfare for work over the past several
years, too many have been left behind because they don't have a high
school degree, have little or no work history, or are lacking the
skills that are important for success in the job market. In addition,
many of those who have secured work are working for low wages, receive
few or no benefits, and have limited opportunity for upward financial
mobility. As we move toward reauthorization, we must do more to support
State efforts to insure that all individuals leaving welfare have the
capacity to obtain employment that will provide long-term financial
independence. The Education Works Act will do just that.
We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in
helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that
have focused on employment but also make substantial use of education
and training, together with job search and other employment services.
Yes, less than 1 percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on education
and training in 2000, largely because current law limits the extent to
which education activities count toward Federal work participation
requirements, effectively restricting how long individuals can
participate in training and also capping how many people can receive
these services.
The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that states
have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary,
vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education
programs by
[[Page S1823]]
TANF recipients as part of TANF work requirements; giving States the
flexibility to determine how long each recipient may participate in
education and training activities while receiving benefits; giving
states the flexibility to provide non-cash assistance in the form of
childcare and transportation supports to individuals who are
participating in a full-time education program, without counting these
services against the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits; eliminating
the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF recipients that can
participate in education and training programs in fulfillment of their
work requirements.
Via TANF waivers, many States have already been operating programs
that do many of the things we're talking about here. In other cases,
however, state efforts to provide education and training to welfare
recipients have been hampered by an inability to use TANF funds to
support these efforts. For example, in my home State, we already have
an ``Education Works'' program but only 400 participants are enrolled
statewide, due to funding limitations.
States should be held accountable for decreasing welfare caseloads
but also for insuring that those entering the workforce have the skills
they need to become and remain economically self-sufficient. We need to
give all states the flexibility to implement the types of programs that
they believe will best achieve these goals. The Education Works Act is
an important step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Finally, I would like to introduce the Self-Sufficiency and
Accountability Act. This Act has several broad goals: to increase state
reporting and accountability for welfare dollars that are received, to
encourage states to develop concrete strategies to help families move
from welfare to self-sufficiency, and to allow states not currently
receiving TANF waivers to do so.
First, State plan requirements under current welfare law are simply
not comprehensive enough. Under current law, States can submit plans
that contain little information about the services that will be
provided, long-range or strategic planning, goals or benchmarks, or how
they will insure equitable treatment of all welfare clients. In
addition, there are currently few provisions for informing the public
about the details contained in state plans. Thus, States have little or
no accountability to legislators or to the public for the billions of
welfare dollars they receive each year.
The Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act seeks to remedy these
deficits. Some of the key provisions include the following:
comprehensive state plans would be required to describe the programs
and services that will be offered, eligibility requirements, the
purposes and goals for all programs and how these goals will be
assessed; the new State plans would increase compliance with
nondiscrimination, employment, and civil rights laws by requiring among
other things, better training of caseworkers, better communication with
welfare clients about their rights and obligations, an appeals process,
reporting requirements for complaints, and penalties for states that
fail to comply with these requirements; the Act would improve public
awareness of and access to State plans in their entirety and provides
opportunity for public comment when a state plan is pending or being
amended.
As I mentioned earlier, large numbers of individuals have moved from
the welfare rolls to work since 1996. During the current welfare
reauthorization, we must look beyond simply putting people to work and
focus on strategies that will help these individuals achieve lasting
economic self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the current content and
structure of state plans are wholly inadequate to address these crucial
self-sufficiency concerns. The self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act
will address these shortcomings by encouraging States to develop
concrete strategies designed to move families toward self-sufficiency.
The bill requires States to identify and address individual and
environmental barriers to self-sufficiency, describe program strategies
implemented to promote self-sufficiency, and to assess the progress of
former welfare families in this regard.
The final purpose of this bill is to address the issue of increased
State flexibility to implement programs that have been proven
effective. After the last reauthorization, many states obtained and
some continue to use TANF waivers to develop innovative welfare
programs that are suited to the specific needs of their TANF caseloads
and labor market conditions in their states. This Act would allow
states that currently have waivers to continue to operate under those
waivers. In addition, the Act stipulates that any state may submit a
waiver application on terms similar or identical to states that are
successfully implementing innovative programs. In this way, all States
would be provided with the flexibility to employ proven strategies in
an effort to address the unique needs of their welfare clients.
Taken together, the three bills I have introduced today would go a
long way toward helping people transition from welfare and providing
these individuals with the skills and supports they need to achieve a
lifetime of productive and financially sustaining work.
I urge my colleagues to support these three bills and I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 261
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 ``Children First Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CHILD CARE FROM DETERMINATION OF 5-YEAR
LIMIT.
Section 408(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Limitation on meaning of `assistance' for families
receiving child care.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), any
funds provided under this part that are used to provide child
care for a family during a month under the State program
funded under this part shall not be considered assistance
under the program.''.
SEC. 3. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE.
(a) Increase in Funding.--Section 418(a)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $3,967,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(H) $4,467,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(I) $4,967,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(J) $5,467,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(K) $5,967,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
(b) Increase in Set Aside for Child Care Quality.--Section
658G of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858e) is amended by striking ``4 percent''
and inserting ``10 percent''.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES TO USE TANF
FUNDS CARRIED OVER FROM PRIOR YEARS TO PROVIDE
TANF BENEFITS AND SERVICES.
Section 404(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
604(e)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Assistance''
and inserting ``benefits or services''; and
(2) after the heading, by striking ``assistance'' and
inserting ``any benefit or service that may be provided''.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION OF CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ACT OF 1990 REPORTING RULES TO TANF FUNDS
EXPENDED FOR CHILD CARE.
(a) In General.--Section 411(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
``(7) Application of child care and development block grant
act of 1990 reporting rules to funds expended for child
care.--Any funds provided under this part that are expended
for child care, whether or not transferred to the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, shall be subject to
the individual and case data reporting requirements imposed
under that Act and need not be included in the report
required by paragraph (1) for a fiscal quarter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 411(a)(1)(A)(ix) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)(ix)) is amended by striking
``food stamps, or subsidized child care, and if the latter
2,'' and inserting ``or food stamps, and if the latter,''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if enacted
on October 1, 2002, and shall apply to payments under part A
of title IV of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters
beginning on or after such date, without regard to whether
regulations to implement the amendments are promulgated by
such date.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan
[[Page S1824]]
under section 402(a) of the Social Security Act which the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires
State legislation (other than legislation appropriating
funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional
requirements imposed by the amendments made by this Act, the
State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with
the requirements of such section 402(a) solely on the basis
of the failure of the plan to meet such additional
requirements before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter
beginning after the close of the 1st regular session of the
State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment
of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the
case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each
year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Bingaman and I
are reintroducing our bill to increase mandatory funding for the Child
Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. Our legislation, the Children
First Act would increase the mandatory funding stream of CCDBG by $11.2
billion over the next five years.
Congress understands that working families need help paying for child
care. Indeed, funding for CCDBG has grown significantly over the past
several years. Yet despite these increases, funding still only reaches
one in seven eligible children nationwide, leaving approximately 12.9
million eligible children without any assistance. Roughly 500,000
children are on waiting lists for help around the country and 21,000
children are on the waiting list for child care assistance in
Massachusetts.
The need for child care assistance in Massachusetts is tremendous.
Currently, 60 percent of Massachusetts children under age six have
mothers in the workforce, and 16.4 percent of Massachusetts children
under age five live in poverty. Child care costs at an urban center for
a four-year-old averages $8,121 per year and the costs for an infant
averages $12,978. That's 223 percent more than the cost of public
college tuition in Massachusetts! It's just shocking to me, Mr.
President, that we expect families to bear the burden of such costly
child care services, they simply cannot afford to do it and are forced
either not to work or to leave their children in substandard, and many
times even dangerous care. CCDBG is a critically important program to
helping poor families afford child care, but we haven't done nearly
enough to fill the existing child care gap. Even combining CCDBG and
state child care funding in Massachusetts only reaches 13 percent of
eligible children.
Senator Bingaman and I led the effort to increase child care funding
during the welfare reform debate last year and we will do so again this
year. But today there is an even more dire need for child care funding
than there was one year ago. State governments face a fiscal crisis of
historical proportions and as a result have been forced to make severe
cuts in social services. In fact child care subsidies for working
parents have been scaled back in a number of states. Unfortunately it's
likely that the federal government may compound those state cuts. The
FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed last week by the Senate
would cut CCDBG discretionary funds by approximately $60.9 million
below FY 2002 levels. As a result, 38,000 fewer children would have
access to child care assistance at a time when only one in seven
eligible children receive services.
Increased availability and the quality of child care helps achieve
two important goals: First, it enables low-income parents on welfare
and parents trying to stay off welfare to work and support their
families. And second, it provides the early learning experiences that
our children need to do well in school. Studies show that when child
care is available, and when families get help paying for care, they are
more likely to work. Children in high quality early care score higher
on reading and math tests, are more likely to complete high school and
go onto college, and are less likely to repeat a grade or get charged
in juvenile court.
Increased child care funding is an investment that we cannot afford
NOT to make. I look forward to teaming up with Senator Bingaman in the
Finance Committee during welfare reauthorization to increase CCDBG
funding. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in the fight to provide
all working families with safe, high-quality child care.
S. 262
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 ``Education Works Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. COUNTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING AS WORK.
Section 407(d)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(d)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) participation in vocational educational training,
postsecondary education, an English-as-a-second-language
program, or an adult basic education program;''.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF LIMIT ON NUMBER OF TANF RECIPIENTS
ENROLLED IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OR HIGH SCHOOL
WHO MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE WORK
PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT.
Section 407(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(c)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
SEC. 4. NONAPPLICATION OF TIME LIMIT TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO
NOT RECEIVE CASH ASSISTANCE AND ARE ENGAGED IN
EDUCATION OR EMPLOYMENT.
Section 408(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Limitation on meaning of `assistance' for certain
individuals.--For purposes of this paragraph, child care or
transportation benefits provided during a month under the
State program funded under this part to an individual who is
participating in a full-time educational program or who is
employed shall not be considered assistance under the State
program.''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if
enacted on October 1, 2002, and shall apply to payments made
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act for
calendar quarters beginning on or after such date, without
regard to whether regulations to implement the amendments are
promulgated by such date.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan under section 402(a) of the Social
Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
determines requires State legislation (other than legislation
appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the
additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by
this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to
comply with the requirements of such section 402(a) solely on
the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such additional
requirements before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter
beginning after the close of the 1st regular session of the
State legislature that begins after the date of enactment of
this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case
of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year
of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature.
S. 263
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 ``Self Sufficiency and
Accountability Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC TANF PLAN.
(a) In General.--Section 402 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 602) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 402. ELIGIBLE STATES; STATE PLAN.
``(a) In General.--As used in this part, the term `eligible
State' means, with respect to a fiscal year, a State that,
during the 27-month period ending with the close of the 1st
quarter of the fiscal year, has submitted to the Secretary,
and revised when necessary in accordance with subsection (b),
a written plan that the Secretary has found includes the
following:
``(1) Outline of family assistance program.--
``(A) Programmatic information.--Information relating to
the State program, including the following:
``(i) With respect to each program that will be funded
under this part, or with qualified State expenditures claimed
by the State to meet the requirements of section 409(a)(7),
over the 2-year period for which the plan is being
submitted--
``(I) the name of the program;
``(II) the goals of the program;
``(III) a description of the benefits and services provided
in the program;
``(IV) a description of principal eligibility rules and
populations served under the program, including the
circumstances under which the State provides benefits or
services to individuals who are not citizens of the United
States;
``(V) a description of how the State will ensure fair and
equitable treatment among program applicants and recipients
and how the State will provide opportunities for applicants
and recipients who have been adversely affected to be heard
in a State administrative or appeal process, including a
description of the steps that the State has taken (or will
take) to ensure--
``(aa) compliance with nondiscrimination, civil rights, and
employment laws throughout the process of providing services
under this part, including at the time of application for
benefits, during the applicant assessment process, when
determining availability
[[Page S1825]]
of an eligibility for benefits and services, during the
actual delivery of services or benefits, and when deciding to
terminate benefits in full or in part; and
``(bb) that program applicants and recipients are aware of
their rights and the process for enforcing their rights; and
``(VI) a description of how the program meets 1 or more of
the purposes described in section 401 or, in the case of a
program funded with qualified State expenditures, how the
program meets the criteria in section 409(a)(7)(B).
``(ii) With respect to each program that will be funded
under this part, or with qualified State expenditures claimed
by the State to meet the requirements of section 409(a)(7),
over the 2-year period for which the plan is being submitted
and that provides assistance--
``(I) a description of the applicable financial and
nonfinancial eligibility rules including, income eligibility
thresholds, the treatment of earnings, asset eligibility
rules, and excluded forms of income;
``(II) a description of applicable work-related
requirements, including which adults are required to
participate in such activities, the activities in which they
can participate, the criteria for determining the activity an
adult is assigned to, and the procedures used to screen and
assess participants for barriers to employment including
physical or mental impairments, substance abuse, learning
disabilities, domestic violence, inadequate or unstable
housing and very low basic skills;
``(III) a description of applicable time limit policies,
including the length of the time limit, exemption and
extension policies, and procedures and policies for providing
services to families reaching time limits and who have lost
assistance due to time limits; and
``(IV) a description of applicable sanction policies and
procedures, including the program requirements for which a
sanction can be applied for failure to comply, the amount and
duration of sanctions, the State-defined criteria that
constitute good cause for failing to meet each program
requirement for which a sanction may be imposed, how the
State will comply with the requirement in section 407(e)(2),
and the procedures in place to identify families who are
unable to comply with program requirements due to various
barriers (such as physical or mental impairments, domestic
violence, unavailable or inaccessible child care, illiteracy,
lack of English proficiency) and procedures for providing
services to those families rather than imposing a sanction on
them.
``(iii) A description of--
``(I) the primary problems that families receiving
assistance, and families who have recently stopped receiving
assistance, under the State program funded under this part,
or under a program funded with qualified State expenditures
as defined in section 407(a)(7), experience in securing and
retaining adequate, affordable housing and the estimated
extent of each such problem, including the price of such
housing in various parts of the State that include a large
proportion of recipients of assistance under the State
program, and the steps that have been and will be taken by
the State and other public or private entities that
administer housing programs to address these problems; and
``(II) the methods the State has adopted to identify
barriers to work posed by the living arrangement, housing
cost, and housing location of individuals eligible for
participation in the State program funded under this part and
the services and benefits that have been or will be provided
by the State and other public or private entities to help
families overcome such barriers.
``(iv) A description of the steps the State will take to
restrict the use and disclosure of information about
individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance
under a program funded under this part, or with qualified
State expenditures as defined in section 409(a)(7).
``(v) A description of how the State will ensure the
availability of a stable and professional workforce in the
administration of the State program under this part with the
resources, skills, and expertise necessary to successfully
carry out the program, including a description of the plan of
the State to provide program staff with training on the
following:
``(I) Program information and services.
``(II) The rights of recipients of assistant under all laws
applicable to the activities of the program, including
nondiscrimination and employment laws.
``(III) Cultural diversity and sensitivity.
``(IV) Referral of recipients of assistance to all
appropriate programs and services for which such recipients
are eligible.
``(V) Screening of recipients of assistance for serious
barriers to employment and referral to qualified specialists.
``(vi) A description of the steps that the State has taken
to inform applicants for and recipients of assistance under
the State program under this part of their rights and
obligations under such program. Such description shall
include--
``(I) an explanation of the manner in which the State will
ensure that such information is communicated effectively to
all such individuals, including how the State will provide
appropriate translation or interpretation services where
necessary; and
``(II) an assurance that the communication of such
information will take place throughout the service delivery
and processing.
``(B) Information about programs designed or implemented at
sub-state levels.--With respect to any program described in
clauses (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) in which the State
permits counties or other substate entities to design their
own rules with respect to any of the information required
under such clauses, the State plan shall be designed to
reflect the policies of each such county or substate entity.
``(C) State goals and benchmarks.--For each purpose
contained in section 401(a), the State plan shall provide the
following information:
``(i) A description of specific goals the State will
attempt to achieve over the succeeding 5-year period to
further that purpose.
``(ii) A description of how the State intends to meet the
goals described in clause (i) over such 5-year period and a
description of the steps the State will take during such
period to work toward achieving such goals.
``(iii) A description of performance measures that will be
used to measure progress made by the State toward achieving
each such goal, including the methodology for computing such
measures. Each performance and outcome measure described in
the State plan under this subparagraph shall be reported by
the State annually in a form prescribed by the Secretary.
``(iv) An identification of those key factors external to
the program and beyond the control of the State that could
significantly affect the attainment of the goals.
``(v) A description of any additional evaluation methods
the State will use to measure progress made by the State
toward achieving such goals.
``(2) Minimum participation rates.--A description of how
the minimum participation rates specified in section 407 will
be satisfied.
``(3) Estimate of expenditures.--An estimate of the total
amount of State or local expenditures under all programs
described in clauses (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) for the
fiscal year in which the plan is submitted.
``(4) Special provisions.--
``(A) Certification regarding assessment of regional
economies and informing localities of sectoral labor
shortages and identification of self-sufficiency standard.--
``(i) In general.--A certification by the chief executive
officer of the State that, during the fiscal year, the State
will--
``(I) assess its regional economies and provide information
to political subdivisions of the State about the industrial
sectors that are experiencing a labor shortage and that
provide higher entry-level wage opportunities for unemployed
and underemployed job seekers identified in accordance with
section 411(c); and
``(II) identify the self-sufficiency standards for families
after the families cease to receive assistance under the
State program funded under this part in accordance with
clause (ii).
``(ii) Requirements for identification of self-sufficiency
standards.--
``(I) In general.--The State shall provide to the Secretary
a document adopted or developed by the State, that--
``(aa) describes the income needs of families (in this part
referred to as `State self-sufficiency standards') based on
family size, the number and ages of children in the family,
and sub-State geographical considerations; and
``(bb) if the State has a sizeable Native American
population, includes information specific to the needs of
that population.
``(II) Criteria.--The State self-sufficiency standards
shall separately specify the monthly costs of housing, food,
child care, transportation, health care, other basic needs,
and taxes (including tax benefits), and shall be determined
using national, State and local data on the cost of
purchasing goods and services in the marketplace.
``(III) Categories of families.--The State self-sufficiency
standards shall categorize families--
``(aa) by whether there are 1 or 2 adults in the family;
``(bb) by whether there are 0, 1, 2, 3, or more than 3
children in the family; and
``(cc) by the age of each child in the family, according to
whether a child is an infant, of pre-school age, of school
age, or a teenager.
``(IV) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe the
protocols, criteria, cost categories, definitions, and means
of making inflation adjustments to be used in developing
self-sufficiency standards pursuant to this clause, which
shall be based on commonly accepted definitions of adequacy,
such as those used for establishing fair market rents, and
that reflect, to the extent possible, consensus and use among
those calculating family budgets and self-sufficiency
standards.
``(V) Data.--The self-sufficiency standards developed
pursuant to this clause shall be--
``(aa) recalculated on adoption if the data on which the
standards are based is more than 3 years old;
``(bb) recalculated every 5 years after adoption; and
``(cc) updated for inflation each year after adoption in
which the standards are not be recalculated pursuant to item
(bb).
``(VI) Technical assistance in developing standards.--The
Secretary may provide financial or technical assistance to an
eligible State to enable the State to develop or improve the
State self-sufficiency standards and produce State reports
required by section 411(d). The Secretary shall carry out
this paragraph by making a grant to, or entering into a
contract with an organization or institution with substantial
experience in calculating and implementing on the State
[[Page S1826]]
level family budgets and self-sufficiency standards. An
organization or institution desiring to provide technical
assistance described in this subclause shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Secretary may require.
``(B) Certification that the state will operate a child
support enforcement program.--A certification by the chief
executive officer of the State that, during the fiscal year,
the State will operate a child support enforcement program
under the State plan approved under part D.
``(C) Certification that the state will operate a foster
care and adoption assistance program.--A certification by the
chief executive officer of the State that, during the fiscal
year, the State will operate a foster care and adoption
assistance program under the State plan approved under part
E, and that the State will take such actions as are necessary
to ensure that children receiving assistance under such part
are eligible for medical assistance under the State plan
under title XIX.
``(D) Certification of the administration of the program.--
A certification by the chief executive officer of the State
specifying which State agency or agencies will administer and
supervise the family assistance program referred to in
paragraph (1) for the fiscal year, which shall include
assurances that local governments and private sector
organizations--
``(i) have been consulted regarding the plan and design of
welfare services in the State so that services are provided
in a manner appropriate to local populations; and
``(ii) have had at least 45 days to submit comments on the
plan and the design of such services.
``(E) Certification that the state will provide indians
with equitable access to assistance.--A certification by the
chief executive officer of the State that, during the fiscal
year, the State will provide each member of an Indian tribe,
who is domiciled in the State and is not eligible for
assistance under a tribal family assistance plan approved
under section 412, with equitable access to assistance under
the State program.
``(F) Certification of standards and procedures to ensure
against program fraud and abuse.--A certification by the
chief executive officer of the State that the State has
established and is enforcing standards and procedures to
ensure against program fraud and abuse, including standards
and procedures concerning nepotism, conflicts of interest
among individuals responsible for the administration and
supervision of the State program, kickbacks, and the use of
political patronage.
``(G) Optional certification of standards and procedures to
ensure that the state will screen for and identify domestic
violence.--
``(i) In general.--At the option of the State, a
certification by the chief executive officer of the State
that the State has established and is enforcing standards and
procedures to--
``(I) screen and identify individuals receiving assistance
under this part with a history of domestic violence while
maintaining the confidentiality of such individuals;
``(II) refer such individuals to counseling and supportive
services; and
``(III) waive, pursuant to a determination of good cause,
other program requirements such as time limits (for so long
as necessary) for individuals receiving assistance, residency
requirements, child support cooperation requirements, and
family cap provisions, in cases where compliance with such
requirements would make it more difficult for individuals
receiving assistance under this part to escape domestic
violence or unfairly penalize such individuals who are or
have been victimized by such violence, or individuals who are
at risk of further domestic violence.
``(ii) Domestic violence defined.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `domestic violence' has the same
meaning as the term `battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty', as defined in section 408(a)(7)(C)(iii).
``(b) Procedures for Submitting and Amending State Plans.--
``(1) Standard state plan format.--The Secretary shall,
after notice and public comment, develop a proposed Standard
State Plan Form to be used by States under subsection (a).
Such form shall be finalized by the Secretary for use by the
State not later than February 1, 2003.
``(2) Requirement for completed plan using standard state
plan format by fiscal year 2004.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, each State shall submit a complete State
plan, using the Standard State Plan Form developed under
paragraph (1), not later than October 1, 2003.
``(3) Public notice and comment.--Prior to submitting a
State plan to the Secretary under this section, the State
shall--
``(A) make the proposed State plan available to the public
through an appropriate State maintained Internet web site and
through other means as the State determines appropriate;
``(B) allow for a reasonable public comment period of not
less than 45 days; and
``(C) make comments received concerning such plan or, at
the discretion of the State, a summary of the comments
received available to the public through such web site and
through other means as the State determines appropriate.
``(4) Public availability of state plan.--A State shall
ensure that the State plan, that is in effect for any fiscal
year, is available to the public through an appropriate State
maintained Internet web site and through other means as the
State determines appropriate.
``(5) Amending the state plan.--A State shall file an
amendment to the State plan with the Secretary if the State
determines that there has been a material change in any
information required to be included in the State plan or any
other information the State has included in the plan,
including substantial changes in the use of funding. Prior to
submitting an amendment to the State plan to the Secretary,
the State shall--
``(A) make the proposed amendment available to the public
as provided for in paragraph (3)(A);
``(B) allow for a reasonable public comment period of not
less than 45 days; and
``(C) make the comments available as provided for in
paragraph (3)(C).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 408(a)(5)(B)(i) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(5)(B)(i)) is amended by
striking ``referred to in section 402(a)(4)''.
SEC. 3. MONITORING OF FEDERAL AND STATE EFFORTS; ASSESSMENT
OF REGIONAL ECONOMIES.
(a) General Reporting Requirement.--Section 411(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
``(7) Self-sufficiency standard.--The report required by
paragraph (1) for a fiscal quarter shall include a
description of the self-sufficiency standard identified for
families in accordance with section 402(a)(4)(A)(ii).
``(8) Information regarding civil rights.--As part of the
information collected and reported under paragraph (1), the
State shall include information on the number of complaints
filed by applicants for or recipients of assistance under the
State program under this part that allege civil rights or
employment law violations and the status of such complaints,
including the number of complaints pending at the time the
report is prepared. Such information shall be delineated by
alleged violation, the number of resolutions during the
reporting period in favor of and against the complainants,
and the average length of time to process complaints.''.
(b) Annual Reports to Congress.--Section 411(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the status of civil rights complaints filed under
this part with the Office of Civil Rights of the Department
of Health and Human Services by applicants for or recipients
of assistance under a State program, including the number of
complaints pending at the time the report is prepared
delineated by alleged violation, the number of resolutions
during the reporting period in favor of and against the
complainants, and the average length of time to process
complaints.''.
(c) Annual Assessment of Regional Economies; Annual Report
On Programs and Services Leading to Self-Sufficiency.--
Section 411 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 611) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Assessment of Regional Economies to Identify Higher
Entry Level Wage Opportunities in Industries Experiencing
Labor Shortages.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible State annually shall conduct
an assessment of its regional economies to identify higher
entry level wage opportunities in industries experiencing
labor market shortages.
``(2) Matters to be assessed.--
``(A) Labor market.--The assessment shall--
``(i) identify industries or occupations that have or
expect to grow, that have or expect a loss of skilled
workers, or that have a need for workers;
``(ii) identify the entry-level education and skills
requirements for the industries or occupations that have or
expect a need for workers; and
``(iii) analyze the entry-level wages and benefits in
identified industries or occupations.
``(B) Job seekers.--The assessment shall create a profile
in each regional economy in the State, of the characteristics
of the unemployed and underemployed residents of such
regional economy, including educational attainment, barriers
to employment, geographic concentrations, self-sufficiency
needs, and availability and utilization of need support
services.
``(C) Education and training infrastructure.--The
assessment shall create a profile, in each regional economy
in the State of the education, training, and support services
in place in such regional economy to prepare workers for the
industries or occupations identified pursuant to subparagraph
(A).
``(D) Aligning industries and job seekers.--The assessment
shall compare the characteristics of the industries or
occupations identified pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the
profile of the job seekers in the State and the profile of
the education and training infrastructure in the State.
[[Page S1827]]
``(3) Sharing of information with localities.--The State
shall share with all counties, municipalities, local
workforce investment boards established under section 117 of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832), and
other appropriate political subdivisions of the State,
information obtained pursuant to this subsection regarding
higher entry-wage job opportunities in industries
experiencing labor shortages, and information regarding
opportunities for collaboration with institutions of higher
education, community-based organizations, and economic
development and welfare agencies.
``(4) Reports of assessment of regional economies.--Each
eligible state shall submit to the Secretary annually a
report that contains the annual assessment conducted pursuant
to this subsection.
``(d) Annual Report on Programs and Services Leading to
Self-Sufficiency.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403(a) for a fiscal year shall submit to the
Secretary a report that describes, with respect to the
preceding fiscal year--
``(1) a description of the ways in which the State program
funded under this part, and support services provided by the
State to recipients of assistance under that program, moved
families toward self-sufficiency, and that highlights the
programs and services that appeared to have a particularly
positive effect on families achieving self-sufficiency;
``(2) the total family income for families that left the
State program funded under this part (including earnings,
unemployment compensation, and child support); and
``(3) the benefits received by families that have left the
State program funded under this part (including benefits
under the food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of
1977, the medicaid program under title XIX, the State
children's health insurance program under title XXI, earned
income tax credits, and housing assistance).''.
(d) Research, Evaluations, and National Studies.--Section
413(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613(h)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Technical assistance in assessing regional
economies.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical
assistance to an eligible State to enable the State to
conduct the assessments required by section 411(c).
``(B) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For
the cost of providing technical assistance under subparagraph
(A), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
not more than $1,500,000 for each fiscal year in which
amounts are appropriated to carry out the State programs
funded under this part.''.
SEC. 4. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FAIR TREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 409(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Increase in applicable percentage for failure to
comply with fair treatment requirements.--The applicable
percent under subparagraph (B)(ii) with respect to a State
shall be increased by 5 percentage points for any year in
which the Secretary determines that the State has failed to
comply with the State plan requirements of clause (i)(V) or
(vi) of section 402(a)(1)(A).''.
SEC. 5. WAIVERS.
(a) Continuation of Prewelfare Reform Waivers.--Section 415
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 615) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Continuation of Waivers Approved or Submitted Before
Date of Enactment of Welfare Reform.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), with respect to any State that is operating
under a waiver described in that subsection which would
otherwise expire on a date that occurs during the period that
begins on October 1, 2002, and ends on September 30, 2007,
the State may elect to continue to operate under that waiver,
on the same terms and conditions as applied to the waiver on
the day before such date, through September 30, 2007.''.
(b) Approval of Waivers To Duplicate Innovative Programs.--
Section 415 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 615), as
amended by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Requirement To Approve Waivers To Duplicate
Innovative Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if a State submits an application for a waiver of 1 or
more requirements of this part that contains terms that are
similar or identical to the terms of a waiver eligible to be
continued under subsection (e), and the application satisfies
the requirements of paragraph (2), the Secretary--
``(A) shall approve the application for a period of at
least 2 years, but not more than 4 years, unless the
Secretary determines that approval would be inconsistent with
the purposes of this part set forth in section 401;
``(B) at the end of the waiver period, shall review
documentation of the effectiveness of the waiver provided by
the State; and
``(C) if such documentation adequately demonstrates that
the program as implemented under the waiver has been
effective, may renew the waiver for such period as the
Secretary determines appropriate, but not later than
September 30, 2007.
``(2) Application requirements.--An application for a
waiver described in paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) describe relevant State caseload characteristics and
labor market conditions;
``(B) specify how the waiver is likely to result in
improved employment outcomes, improved child well-being, or
both;
``(C) describe the State's proposed approach for evaluation
of the program under the waiver; and
``(D) include an agreement to conduct an independent
evaluation of the waiver and to submit the results of the
evaluation to the Secretary.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 415(b)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 615(b)(1)) is amended by inserting
``, extended under subsection (e), or approved under
subsection (f)'' after ``(a)''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect as if enacted on October 1, 2002.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan under section 402 of the Social Security
Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services
determines requires State legislation (other than legislation
appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the
additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by
this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to
comply with the requirements of such section 402 solely on
the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such additional
requirements before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter
beginning after the close of the 1st regular session of the
State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment
of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the
case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each
year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 264. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
extend the availability of allotments to States for fiscal years 1998
through 2000, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's
Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on
this bill by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has
been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in
the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of
budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of
States and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the
Federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the
highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide
health insurance coverage for low-income children.
Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting
from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the
jobless rate at seven percent, we have one of the highest unemployment
rates in the country. 214,300 Washingtonians are unable to find work.
And just over the last month, our State has lost 2,946 jobs, and over
50 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector.
In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured
people in Washington State, including 155,000 children. That number has
surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen.
In fact, in October, the Census Bureau reported that the number of
uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are
41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of
whom are children.
The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the
health care system. Last September, the Kaiser Family Foundation
reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since
1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that
health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first
time since that year.
The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that
the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or
forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as
insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance
matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow.
Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion State grant
program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children
who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not
enough to afford private insurance. In most States, the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP has been extremely
successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year
through
[[Page S1828]]
SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the
program.
Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate
in this success, and perversely, the States that have been left out are
those that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid
programs to cover low-income children at higher levels of poverty.
Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health
insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low-
income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises.
Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to
our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid
populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in
1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP.
When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from
using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made
it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially
penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage
for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP
matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of
the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than
four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP.
Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an
enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids
from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and
cannot use funds like other states, Washington State is sending $95
million back to the federal treasury or to other States. This defies
common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be
penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment
of SCHIP.
This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and
Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP
funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for
children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may
have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a
commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a
portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access
to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The
bill also ensures that all States that have demonstrated a commitment
to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in
the same manner to support children's health care coverage.
First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 state allotments
``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be
returned to the Federal treasury. Our bill allows States to keep their
remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the purposes of
this legislation.
Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are
due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those
States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow
the retention and redistribution of these funds as was done two years
ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had
an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months
in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP
allotment.
Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying
States would receive the difference between their Medicaid Federal
matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP
matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's
current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does
not erode as States face enormous budget deficits. States would be able
to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP
allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments.
Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the
highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain
requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids
that had previously been covered above the mandatory level.
Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our
great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies,
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to
build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic
time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care
coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to
keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of
this bill.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator
Cantwell in introducing the Children's Health Protection and
Eligibility Act. This important legislation will ensure that low income
children in Washington State are not denied access to health insurance
coverage. The legislation provides a fair and equitable distribution of
unobligated State balances in the CHIP program. It ensures that States
like Washington that have led the Nation in caring for their children
are not denied access to vital CHIP dollars. It rewards Washington
state for putting children first.
Washington State is facing the greatest fiscal crisis since World War
II. Between June 2001 and November 2002, Washington State lost more
than 74,000 non-farm jobs. This economic recession has hit families in
Washington state hard.
In 2002, before the recession began, there were 155,000 uninsured
children in Washington State. Current estimates place this number even
higher. With additional layoffs and more families losing COBRA
coverage, the number of uninsured children will only continue to grow.
Washington State must have access to its CHIP dollars to prevent more
children from losing their health care safety net.
Because Washington State was so far ahead of the rest of the Nation
in 1997, when CHIP was enacted, our state has been unable to use its
full allocation. A majority of children who would be eligible for
participation in CHIP were already covered in 1997 under the Medicaid
program. As a result, Washington State has been unable to count these
children as ``CHIP'' The federal share of CHIP is currently 67 percent
as opposed to Medicaid, which provides only a 50 percent match for
Washington state. If the State was able to provide coverage for some of
these low income children under CHIP, it would reduce pressure on our
state's Medicaid program. Without this relief, Washington State will
face additional Medicaid reductions. Many of the children that
currently have coverage will lose this coverage and join the ranks of
the uninsured.
Allowing the number of children without insurance to grow is both
inhumane for our children and irresponsible for our society. Uninsured
children are six times as likely as insured children to go without
needed medication. Uninsured children are more likely to be treated in
the emergency room than insured children. These children are showing up
more and more in the emergency room to get basic primary care. The cost
of providing this care only increases as their families are forced to
delay care. We all pay when children go without health insurance
coverage.
This is not just a question of saving money. Providing comprehensive,
prevention-based health insurance to children is a sound investment.
Delaying this care only adds to the overall cost of health care,
education and our criminal justice system. This legislation that we are
introducing puts our kids at the front of the line.
I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation.
Let's send the right message to our States: If you do the right thing,
you will no longer be denied your fair allocation. Instead, you will be
rewarded for putting children first.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 265. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include
sports utility vehicles in the limitation on the depreciation of
certain luxury automobiles; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``The SUV
Business Tax Loophole Closure Act'' along with
[[Page S1829]]
Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton to close a loophole in tax law that
some are inappropriately using to deduct a majority of the cost of the
largest SUVs on the market.
To encourage small business growth, Congress has created a number of
mechanisms for small business owners and the self-employed to be able
to deduct a variety of capital expenses immediately. In order to keep
people from abusing these deductions to buy passenger cars for personal
use and call it a business expense, Congress capped the deduction for
car purchases at $7,660 in the first year, and $4,900 in the second
year after the purchase.
But to help farmers and small business owners that need pick-up
trucks or vans for business purposes, Congress excluded from the car
cap those vehicles that weigh more than 6,000 pounds. Vehicles larger
than 6,000 pounds are eligible for the full capital expense--$25,000.
This tax policy was created before the advent of SUVs, many of which
weigh more than 6,000 pounds.
As a result, people who do not need a large vehicle for business
purposes are buying the largest Hummer SUVs, Mercedes SUVs, BMW SUVs
and other super-sized SUVs and deducting a significant portion of the
cost from their taxes immediately. If they were to buy anything smaller
than the largest of SUVs, then they would not get the larger tax
deduction because the lower weight puts the SUV under the luxury car
cap. This distorts the market, pushing up demand for the largest of all
SUVs at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
To fix this problem, my legislation places the purchases of SUVs
weighing more than 6,000 pounds under the same tax deduction cap placed
on the purchase of cars. That would end the market distorting incentive
that encourages small business people such as accountants, lawyers, and
consultants to buy a Hummer when they do not need a Hummer for business
purposes.
Let me give you an example. Karl Wizinsky, a health care consultant
in Michigan, bought a $47,000 Ford Excursion earlier this year and was
able to write off $32,000 of the purchase price as a business expense.
He was not even thinking about buying a new car until he heard about
the deduction. In the December 18, 2002 Detroit News article, he said
``We really did it, bought the SUV, because it is a pretty hefty
deduction.'' Now, a health care consultant may need to carry medical
samples around town but he certainly does not need a 6,000 pound,
extra-large SUV to do it and we should not be subsidizing that
purchase. The group ``Taxpayers for Common Sense'' estimates that the
SUV tax loophole costs government between $840 million and $987 million
for every 100,000 SUVs over 6,000 pounds sold to business.
I propose to fix the problem by including extra-large SUVs under the
same deduction cap we have in place for cars. In order to ensure that
farmers and small business owners can still get the tax credit to
purchase trucks for hauling or vans for transporting products, I have
carved out SUVs very carefully. The bill specifically allows the larger
deduction for any vehicle which: No. 1. does not have the primary load
carrying device or container attached; No. 2. has a seating capacity of
more than 12 people; No. 3. is designed for more than 9 persons in
seating rearward of the driver's seat; No. 4. is equipped with an open
cargo area, for example a pick-up truck or box bed, of 72 inches in
interior length or more; or No. 5. has an integral enclosure, fully
enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device and having no
body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge
of the windshield. This will allow the larger deduction to continue to
be taken for the purchase of vehicles that small businesses and farmers
truly need, including pick-up trucks and cargo vans.
I know that Congress never intended for the SUV tax loophole to
exist, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to close it.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 267. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a deferral of tax on gain from the sale of telecommunications
businesses in specific circumstances or a tax credit and other
incentives to promote diversity of ownership in telecommunications
businesses; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2003. This legislation is
designed to ensure that more Americans have an opportunity to provide
their distinct voices in today's telecommunications marketplace. In
addition to providing competition by certain small businesses, this
bill would encourage ownership by individuals who are currently
underrepresented in the ownership of telecommunications companies,
including minorities and women, by making carefully crafted changes in
the tax code.
The bill would institute market-based, voluntary measures designed to
achieve this goal. It would provide sellers of telecommunications
assets a tax deferral when those assets are bought for cash by certain
small businesses. It would also provide investors an incentive to
consider certain small businesses by providing a reduction in the tax
on gains from investment in these companies.
Today, transactions in the telecommunications industry are routinely
valued in the billions of dollars. Even radio, which has traditionally
been a comparatively easier telecom segment to enter, has been priced
out of the range of most would-be entrants. Given the significant cost
of participating in this industry, the limited club of media and other
telecommunications owners may not always include certain small
businesses.
This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on media ownership. We heard of the
difficulties small minority-owned businesses experience when trying to
raise the capital necessary to enter this business. Minorities are
woefully underrepresented in the ownership of commercial broadcast
facilities. As of December 2000, minorities owned an estimated 3.8
percent of these facilities in the United States, despite representing
an estimated 29 percent of the total United States population. The bill
does not mandate ownership levels by any specific group. But it does
ensure that certain small businesses are on equal footing with large
companies. We should ensure that the American media landscape includes
opportunities for these voices to be heard.
Too often today, new entrants and small businesses lose out on
opportunities to purchase telecom assets because they don't offer
sellers the same tax treatment as their larger competitors. A small
purchaser's cash offer triggers tax liability, while a larger
purchaser's stock offer may be accepted effectively tax-free. When an
entity chooses to sell a telecom business, our tax laws should not make
one bidder more attractive than another.
The goal of viewpoint diversity has been at the center of recent
debate over media ownership rules. While it is important to discuss the
relative merits of ownership restrictions, we must also consider
market-based, voluntary methods of facilitating entry and diversity of
ownership. And that's what this legislation would do.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 267
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 ``Telecommunications Ownership
Diversification Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Current trends in the telecommunications industry show
that there is increasing convergence among various media,
including broadcasting, cable television, and Internet-based
businesses, that provide news, information, and
entertainment.
(2) This convergence will continue, and therefore,
diversifying the ownership of telecommunications facilities
remains a preeminent public interest concern that should be
reflected in both telecommunications and tax policy.
(3) A market-based, voluntary system of investment
incentives is an effective, lawful, and economically sound
means of facilitating entry and diversification of ownership
in the telecommunications industry.
(4) Opportunities for new entrants to participate and grow
in the telecommunications industry have substantially
decreased since the end of the Federal Communications
[[Page S1830]]
Commission's tax certificate policy in 1995, particularly in
light of the availability of tax-free like-kind exchanges,
despite the most robust period of transfers of radio and
television stations in history. During this time, businesses
owned or controlled by socially disadvantaged individuals,
including, but not limited to, members of minority groups and
women, have continued to be underrepresented as owners of
telecommunications facilities.
(5) Businesses owned or controlled by socially
disadvantaged individuals are, and historically have been,
economically disadvantaged in the telecommunications
industry. For these businesses, access to and cost of capital
are and have been substantial obstacles to new entry and
growth. Consequently, diversification of ownership in the
telecommunications industry has been limited.
(6) Telecommunications facilities owned by new entrants may
not be attractive to investors because their start-up costs
are often high, their revenue streams are uncertain, and
their profit margins are unknown.
(7) It is consistent with the public interest and with the
pro-competition policies of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 to provide incentives that will facilitate investments
in, and acquisition of, telecommunications facilities by
economically and socially disadvantaged businesses, thereby
diversifying the ownership of telecommunications facilities.
(8) Increased participation by economically and socially
disadvantaged businesses in the ownership of
telecommunications facilities will enhance competition in the
telecommunications industry. Permitting sellers of
telecommunications facilities to defer taxation of gains from
transactions involving economically and socially
disadvantaged businesses, or certain small businesses
supported by investments from the Telecommunications
Development Fund that provides capital for such businesses,
will further the development of a competitive and diverse
United States telecommunications industry without
governmental intrusion in private investment decisions.
(9) The public interest would not be served by attempts to
diversify the ownership of telecommunications businesses
through any approach that would involve the use of mandated
set-asides or quotas.
(10) Today, the telecommunications industry is struggling
to survive one of its most troubling times. Therefore,
facilitating voluntary, pro-competitive transactions that
will promote ownership of telecommunications facilities by
economically and socially disadvantaged businesses and
certain small businesses will aid in providing the investment
and capital that is crucial to this sector.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to facilitate
voluntary, pro-competitive transactions that will promote
ownership of telecommunications facilities by economically
and socially disadvantaged businesses and certain small
businesses.
SEC. 3. NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN ON CERTAIN QUALIFIED SALES OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter O of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to gain or loss on disposition
of property) is amended by inserting after part IV the
following new part:
``PART V--CERTAIN SALES OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESSES
``Sec. 1071. Nonrecognition of gain on certain sales of
telecommunications businesses.
``SEC. 1071. NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN ON CERTAIN SALES OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESSES.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, if a
taxpayer elects the application of this section to a
qualified telecommunications sale, such sale shall be treated
as an involuntary conversion of property within the meaning
of section 1033.
``(b) Limitation on Amount of Gain on Which Tax May Be
Deferred.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of gain on any qualified
telecommunications sale which is not recognized by reason of
this section--
``(A) shall not exceed $250,000,000 per sale, and
``(B) shall not exceed \1/3\ of such dollar amount per
taxable year.
``(2) Carryforwards of unused amounts.--If the amount of
gain on any qualified telecommunications sale which is not
recognized by reason of this section exceeds the limitation
imposed by paragraph (1)(B) for the taxable year, such excess
shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to
the amount allowable under this section for such taxable
year.
``(c) Qualified Telecommunications Sale.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified telecommunications sale'
means any sale to an eligible purchaser of--
``(1) the assets of a telecommunications business, or
``(2) stock in a corporation if, immediately after such
sale--
``(A) the eligible purchaser controls (within the meaning
of section 368(c)) such corporation, and
``(B) substantially all of the assets of such corporation
are assets of 1 or more telecommunications businesses, or
``(3) an interest in a partnership if, immediately after
such sale--
``(A) the eligible purchaser owns a partnership interest
possessing--
``(i) at least 80 percent of the total combined voting
power of all classes of partnership interests entitled to
vote,
``(ii) control over the management of the partnership,
``(iii) at least 80 percent of the capital interests of the
partnership, and
``(iv) a distributive share of at least 80 percent of each
item of the partnership's income, gain, loss, deduction or
credit, and
``(B) substantially all of the assets of such partnership
are assets of 1 or more telecommunications businesses.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) In general.--In applying section 1033 for purposes of
subsection (a), stock of a corporation or an interest in a
partnership operating a telecommunications business, whether
or not representing control of such corporation or
partnership, shall be treated as property similar or related
in service or use to the property sold in the qualified
telecommunications sale.
``(2) Election to reduce basis rather than recognize
remainder of gain.--If--
``(A) a taxpayer elects the treatment under subsection (a)
with respect to any qualified telecommunications sale, and
``(B) an amount of gain would (but for this paragraph) be
recognized on such sale under section 1033(a)(2)(A) in excess
of the amount required to be recognized by reason of
subsection (b),
then the amount of gain described in this subparagraph shall
not be recognized to the extent that the taxpayer elects to
reduce the basis of depreciable property (within the meaning
of section 1017(b)(3)) held by the taxpayer immediately after
the sale or acquired in the same taxable year. The manner and
amount of such reduction shall be determined under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(3) Basis.--For basis of property acquired on a sale or
exchange treated as an involuntary conversion under
subsection (a), see section 1033(b).
``(e) Recapture of Tax Benefit if Telecommunications
Business Resold Within 3 Years, etc.--
``(1) In general.--If, within 3 years after the date of any
qualified telecommunications sale, there is a recapture event
with respect to the property involved in such sale, then the
purchaser's tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
in which such event occurs shall be increased by an amount
equal to the product of--
``(A) the highest marginal rate of income tax imposed on
corporations under section 11, and
``(B) the lesser of--
``(i) the consideration furnished by the purchaser in such
sale, or
``(ii) the dollar amount specified in subsection (b)(1)(A).
``(2) Exception for reinvested amounts.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to any recapture event which is a sale if--
``(A) the sale is a qualified telecommunications sale, or
``(B) during the 60-day period beginning on the date of
such sale, the taxpayer is the purchaser in another qualified
telecommunications sale in which the consideration furnished
by the taxpayer is not less than the amount realized on the
recapture event sale.
``(3) Recapture event.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `recapture event' means, with respect to any
qualified telecommunications sale--
``(A) any sale or other disposition of the assets, stock,
or partnership interest referred to in subsection (c) which
were acquired by the taxpayer in such sale, and
``(B) in the case of a qualified telecommunications sale
described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c)--
``(i) any sale or other disposition of a telecommunications
business by the corporation or partnership referred to in
such subsection, or
``(ii) any other transaction which results in the eligible
purchaser ceasing to be an eligible purchaser, or ceasing to
have control (as defined in subsection (c)(2)(A)) of such
corporation or ownership of an interest in such partnership
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subsection
(c)(3)(A).
``(f) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Eligible purchaser.--The term `eligible purchaser'
means--
``(A) any economically and socially disadvantaged business,
or
``(B) any corporation or partnership if immediately
following the purchase--
``(i) substantially all the assets of such corporation or
partnership are assets of 1 or more telecommunications
businesses, and
``(ii) the Telecommunications Development Fund established
under section 714 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 614) or any wholly-owned affiliate of such Fund owns
at least 5 percent of--
``(I) the stock in such corporation,
``(II) the partnership interest in such partnership, or
``(III) the indebtedness convertible into such stock or
partnership interest.
``(2) Economically and socially disadvantaged business.--
The term `economically and socially disadvantaged business'
means a person which is designated by the Secretary as an
economically and socially disadvantaged business based on a
determination that such person--
``(A) meets the control requirements of paragraph (6),
[[Page S1831]]
``(B) will be a telecommunications business after the
purchase for which the eligibility determination is sought,
and
``(C) before the purchase for which the eligibility
determination is sought does not have--
``(i) attributable ownership interest in television
broadcast stations having an aggregate national audience
reach of more than 5 percent as defined by the Federal
Communications Commission under section 73.3555(e)(2)(i) of
title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as in effect on
January 1, 2001,
``(ii) attributable ownership interest in--
``(I) more than 50 radio stations nationally, and
``(II) radio stations with a combined market share
exceeding 10 percent of radio advertising revenues in the
relevant market as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission, or
``(iii) attributable ownership interest in any other
telecommunications business having more than 5 percent of
national subscribers of their respective service.
``(3) Relevant market.--The term `relevant market' means
the local radio market served by the radio station or
stations being purchased.
``(4) Telecommunications business.--The term
`telecommunications business' means a business which, as its
primary purpose, engages in electronic communications and is
regulated by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant
to the Communications Act of 1934, including a cable system
(as defined in section 602(7) of such Act (47 U.S.C.
522(7))), a radio station (as defined in section 3(35) of
such Act (47 U.S.C. 153(35))), a broadcasting station
providing television service (as defined in section 3(49) of
such Act (47 U.S.C. 153(49))), a provider of direct broadcast
satellite service (as defined in section 335(b)(5)(A) of such
Act (47 U.S.C. 335(b)(5)(A))), a provider of video
programming (as defined in section 602(20) of such Act (47
U.S.C. 522(20))), a provider of commercial mobile services
(as defined in section 332(d)(1) of such Act (47 U.S.C.
332(d)(1))), a telecommunications carrier (as defined in
section 3(44) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 153(44))), a provider of
fixed satellite service, a reseller of the communications
service or commercial mobile service, or a provider of
multichannel multipoint distribution service.
``(5) Purchase.--A taxpayer shall be considered to have
purchased a property if, but for subsection (d)(2) and the
application of section 1033(b), the basis of the property
would be its cost within the meaning of section 1012.
``(6) Control.--
``(A) Individuals.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), an
individual who meets the requirements of paragraph (7) also
meets the requirements of this paragraph.
``(B) Entities.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), an
entity meets the requirement of this paragraph if the
requirements of subparagraphs (C), (D), or (E) are satisfied.
``(C) 30-percent test.--The requirements of this
subparagraph are satisfied if--
``(i) with respect to any entity which is a corporation,
individuals who meet the requirements of paragraph (7)
collectively own at least 30 percent in value of the
outstanding stock of the corporation, and more than 50
percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of
stock entitled to vote of the corporation, and
``(ii) with respect to any entity which is a partnership,
individuals who meet the requirements of paragraph (7)
collectively own at least 30 percent of the capital interests
in the partnership, a distributive share of at least 30
percent of each item of the partnership's income, gain, loss,
deduction, or credit, more than 50 percent of the total
combined voting power of all partnership interests entitled
to vote, and control over the management of the partnership.
``(D) 15-percent test.--The requirements of this
subparagraph are satisfied if--
``(i) with respect to any entity which is a corporation--
``(I) individuals who meet the requirements of paragraph
(7) collectively own at least 15 percent in value of the
outstanding stock of the corporation, and more than 50
percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of
stock entitled to vote of the corporation, and
``(II) no other person owns more than 25 percent in value
of the outstanding stock of the corporation, and
``(ii) with respect to any entity which is a partnership--
``(I) individuals who meet the requirements of paragraph
(7) collectively own at least 15 percent of the capital
interests in the partnership, a distributive share of at
least 15 percent of each item of the partnership's income,
gain, loss, deduction, or credit, more than 50 percent of the
total combined voting power of all classes of partnership
interests entitled to vote, and control over the management
of the partnership, and
``(II) no other person owns more than 25 percent of the
capital interests and profits interests in the partnership or
a distributive share of more than 25 percent of any item of
the partnership's income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit.
``(E) Publicly-traded corporation test.--The requirements
of this subparagraph are satisfied if, with respect to a
corporation the securities of which are traded on an
established securities market, individuals who meet the
requirements of paragraph (7) collectively own more than 50
percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of
stock entitled to vote of the corporation.
``(F) Restrictions on agreements concerning voting of stock
or partnership interests.--For purposes of satisfying the
requirements of subparagraph (C), (D), or (E), the stock or
partnership interest relied upon to establish compliance
shall not be subject to any agreement, arrangement, or
understanding which provides for, or relates to, the voting
of the stock or partnership interest in any manner by, or at
the direction of, any person other than an eligible
individual who meets the requirements of paragraph (7), or
the right of any person other than 1 of those individuals to
acquire the voting power through purchase of shares,
partnership interests, or otherwise.
``(G) Constructive ownership.--In applying subparagraphs
(C), (D), (E), and (F), the constructive ownership rules of
section 318 shall apply, but only if the interests for which
constructive ownership is claimed are not owned, directly or
indirectly, by individuals who do not meet the requirements
of paragraph (7).
``(7) Individuals.--An individual meets the requirements of
this paragraph if such individual is--
``(A) a United States citizen, and
``(B) a member of an economically or socially disadvantaged
class determined by the Secretary to be underrepresented in
the ownership of the relevant telecommunications business.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Sections 1245(b)(5) and 1250(d)(5) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended--
(A) by inserting ``section 1071 (relating to certain sales
of telecommunications businesses) or'' before section 1081'',
and
(B) by inserting ``and 1071'' before ``1081'' in the
heading thereof.
(2) The table of parts for subchapter O of chapter 1 of
such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to
part IV the following new item:
``Part V. Certain sales of telecommunications businesses.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to elections made with respect to any sale on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
rules for computing investment credit) is amended by
inserting after section 48 the following new section:
``SEC. 48A. TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS CREDIT.
``For purposes of section 46, there is allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for any taxable year
an amount equal to 10 percent of the taxable income of any
taxpayer which at all times during such taxable year--
``(1) is a local exchange carrier (as defined in section
3(26) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(26))),
``(2) is not a Bell operating company (as defined in
section 3(4) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 153(4))), and
``(3) is headquartered in an area designated as an
empowerment zone by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.''.
(b) Transitional Rule.--Section 39(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to transitional rules) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) No carryback of section 48a credit before effective
date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any
taxable year which is attributable to the telecommunications
business credit determined under section 48A may be carried
back to a taxable year ending on or before the date of the
enactment of section 48A.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to amount of credit) is amended by striking ``and''
at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) the telecommunications business credit.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 48 the following
new item:
``48A. Telecommunications business credit.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. EXCLUSION OF 50 PERCENT OF GAIN.
(a) In General.--Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to partial exclusion for gain from certain
small business stock) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Certain telecommunications investments by
corporations and investment companies.--Gross income shall
not include 50 percent of any gain from the sale or exchange
of stock in an eligible purchaser (as defined in section
1071(f)(1)), engaged in a telecommunications business (as
defined in section 1071(f)(4)) held for more than 5 years.'',
(2) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection
(b)(1) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) in the case of gain from the sale or exchange of
qualified small business stock held for more than 5 years--
[[Page S1832]]
``(i) $10,000,000 reduced by the aggregate amount of
eligible gain taken into account by the taxpayer under
subsection (a) for prior taxable years attributable to
dispositions of stock issued by such corporation, or
``(ii) 10 times the aggregate adjusted bases of qualified
small business stock issued by such corporation and disposed
of by the taxpayer during the taxable year, and
``(B) in the case of gain from the sale or exchange of
stock in an eligible purchaser engaged in a
telecommunications business for more than 5 years--
``(i) $20,000,000 reduced by the aggregate amount of
eligible gain taken into account by the taxpayer under
subsection (a) for prior taxable years attributable to
dispositions of stock issued by an eligible purchaser engaged
in a telecommunications business, or
``(ii) 15 times the aggregate adjusted bases of stock of an
eligible purchaser engaged in a telecommunications business
issued by such eligible purchaser and disposed of by the
taxpayer during the taxable year.'',
(3) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' in the last sentence
of subsection (b)(1) and inserting ``subparagraphs (A)(ii)
and (B)(ii)'',
(4) by striking ``years.'' in subsection (b)(2) and
inserting ``years or any gain from the sale or exchange of
stock in an eligible purchaser engaged in a
telecommunications business held for more than 5 years.'',
and
(5) by striking the period at the end of subsection
(b)(3)(A) and inserting ``, and paragraph (1)(B) shall be
applied by substituting `$10,000,000' for `$20,000,000'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; REGULATIONS.
(a) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The Secretary of
the Treasury shall, not later than 150 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Finance of the Senate, a draft of any technical and
conforming amendments of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code the
amendments made by this Act.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Federal Communications Commission,
shall promulgate regulations to implement the amendments made
by this Act not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. The regulations shall provide for the
determination by the Secretary of the Treasury as to whether
an applicant is an ``eligible purchaser'' as defined in
section 1071(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as
added by section 3(a)). The regulations shall further provide
that such determinations of eligibility shall be made not
later than 45 calendar days after an application is filed
with the Secretary of the Treasury. The regulations
implementing section 1071(f)(7) of such Code (as added by
section 3) shall be updated on an ongoing basis not less
frequently than every 5 years.
SEC. 7. BIENNIAL PROGRAM AUDITS BY GAO.
Not later than January 1, 2005, and not later than 2 years
thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall audit the administration of the sections of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 added or amended by this Act,
and issue a report on the results of that audit. The
Comptroller General shall include in the report,
notwithstanding any provision of section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to the contrary--
(1) a list of eligible purchasers (as defined in section
1071(f)(1) of such Code) and any other taxpayer receiving a
benefit from the operation of section 48A or 1202 of such
Code as such section was added or amended by this Act, and
(2) an assessment of the effect the amendments made by this
Act have on increasing new entry and growth in the
telecommunications industry by economically and socially
disadvantaged businesses, and the effect of this Act on
enhancing the competitiveness of the telecommunications
industry.
______
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 268. A bill to authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to
establish a memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to
honor members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have lost
their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts,
training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, it will be ten years ago this October
that Americans watched in horror as a U.S. humanitarian effort went
terribly askew. As frightening pictures from U.S. troops in Somalia
came back to the Untied States, a group of students at Riverside High
School in Painesville, OH watched in shock as a U.S. soldier was
dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. These students, concerned
with the lack of a memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor members of
our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such
as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action.
The motivation and vision of these young people propelled them to
spearhead a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in
Washington, DC, which would honor U.S. service men and women who have
lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts,
training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. The student not only
proposed the memorial, they created a private non-profit foundation to
raise the money to construct it. Along with the support of their
community, who provided legal counsel for the students and private
donations to help fund the project, their hard work and dedication has
facilitated a Pyramid of Remembrance which would be built at little or
no cost to the taxpayer.
In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with
overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about
the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that
the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at
Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would
indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments.
On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave
American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief
Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache
helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine
training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO
allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked
at the time, the United States owes Kevin, David and so many other
service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to
repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in
John, chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends.''
We must also remember and honor the lives of brave men and women who
have lost their lives while defending our freedom during the global
campaign against terrorism. Tragically, ten service members, including
three men from the State of Ohio, lost their lives on February 21,
2002, when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in the Philippines. They
are Army Captain Bartt Owens of Franklin, OH; Army Chief Warrant
Officer Jody Egnor of Middletown, OH; and Air Force Master Sgt. William
McDaniel of Fort Jefferson, OH. As our Nation continues to engage in
the war against terror, we must not forget the sacrifice that these men
have made for their country and the freedom of all Americans.
The patriotism, dedication, and vision of the students at Riverside
High School are commendable. I support and applaud the work they have
done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality and I believe it is
our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their
lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war.
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. 268
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ARMED FORCES MEMORIAL.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map referred to in
section 8902(a)(3) of title 40, United States Code.
(2) Memorial.--The term ``memorial'' means the memorial
authorized to be established under subsection (b)(1).
(b) Authority To Establish Memorial.--
(1) In general.--The Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation may
establish a memorial on Federal land in the area depicted on
the map as ``Area II'' to honor members of the Armed Forces
of the United States who have lost their lives during
peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training,
terrorist attacks, or covert operations.
(2) Compliance with standards for commemorative works.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with
chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Subsections (b) and (c) of section 8903 of
title 40, United States Code, shall not apply to the
establishment of the memorial.
[[Page S1833]]
(c) Funds for Memorial.--
(1) Use of federal funds prohibited.--Except as provided by
chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, no Federal funds
may be used to pay any expense incurred from the
establishment of the memorial.
(2) Deposit of excess funds.--The Pyramid of Remembrance
Foundation shall transmit to the Secretary of the Treasury
for deposit in the account provided for in section 8906(b)(1)
of title 40, United States Code--
(A) any funds that remain after payment of all expenses
incurred from the establishment of the memorial (including
payment of the amount for maintenance and preservation
required under section 8906(b) of title 40, United States
Code); or
(B) any funds that remain on expiration of the authority
for the memorial under section 8903(e) of title 40, United
States Code.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Levin,
and Mr. Smith):
S. 269. A bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further
the conservation of certain wildlife species; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Captive
Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the
welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. I am
joined by Senator Ensign of Nevada, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator
Levin of Michigan as original co-sponsors of this legislation.
This bill amends the Lacy Act Amendment of 1981 to bar the interstate
and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers,
leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all
private ownership of these prohibited species, but would outlaw the
commerce of these animals for use as pets.
Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in
captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in
captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats
throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most
of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's
house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous
animals.
Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there
are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions,
cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets.
Untrained owners are not capable of meeting the needs of these
animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments
are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper
care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared
for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutrition,
and physical needs.
People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These
cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing
innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and
unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered
public safety. Last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was
killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, a 58 year-old
woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being
kept as a pet, and in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped
from a ``private safari''. Parents living nearby sat in their front
yards with high-powered rifles, guarding their children at play,
frightened that the wild tigers might attack them.
This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those
already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal
Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act
specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are
maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets.
The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on
the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals
can be kept as pets. The United States Department of Agriculture
states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars,
and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals'
potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an
untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious
risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an
animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.''
The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes
the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes
that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be
prohibited.''
This bill preserves those local regulations already in existence.
Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been
enacted in 7 States. I sincerely hope that grass roots organizations
continue to encourage State and local governments to ban the private
ownership of exotic cats.
The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of
Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Funds
for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these
animals. Exotic cats in captivity should be able to live humanely and
healthfully.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to
working with our partners in the House to enact the Captive Wildlife
Safety Act.
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. 269
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 ``Captive Wildlife Safety
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES.
Section 2 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C.
3371) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) through (j) as
subsections (h) through (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(k) Prohibited wildlife species.--The term `prohibited
wildlife species' means any live lion, tiger, leopard,
cheetah, jaguar, or cougar.''.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Lacey Act Amendments of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 3372) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, or'' at the end
and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) any prohibited wildlife species (subject to
subsection (e));'';
(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end; and
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraphs (1) through
(4)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Nonapplicability of Prohibited Wildlife Species
Offense.--
``(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(2)(C) does not apply to--
``(A) any zoo, circus, research facility licensed or
registered and inspected by a Federal agency, or aquarium;
``(B) any person accredited by the Association of
Sanctuaries or the American Sanctuary Association;
``(C) any State college, university, or agency, State-
licensed wildlife rehabilitator, or State-licensed
veterinarian;
``(D) any incorporated humane society, animal shelter, or
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals;
``(E) any federally-licensed and inspected breeder or
dealer that is conducting any breeding or dealing activity
with a person referred to in this paragraph; or
``(F) any person having custody of a wild animal solely for
the purpose of transporting the animal to a person referred
to in this paragraph.
``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in
consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal
agencies, shall promulgate regulations describing the persons
or entities to which paragraph (1) applies.
``(3) State authority.--Nothing in this subsection preempts
or supersedes the authority of a State to regulate wildlife
species within that State.''.
(b) Application.--Section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (as added by subsection (a)(1)(A)(iii))
shall apply beginning on the effective date of regulations
promulgated under section 3(e)(2) of that Act (as added by
subsection (a)(2)).
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my
distinguished colleagues in introducing legislation that addresses the
welfare of exotic animals throughout the country. Specifically, this
bill prohibits the interstate shipment of exotic animals; namely lions,
cheetahs, tigers, jaguars, and leopards. Only zoos, circuses,
sanctuaries, universities, licensed breeders and other Federal and
State licensed facilities are exempted from this prohibition.
During my days as a practicing veterinarian, I saw firsthand exotic
animals mistreated by owners who were ill-prepared to care for them.
All too often, large cats are put in cages that are too small to
accommodate their growing needs. Owners often buy a young tiger or cat,
paying more attention to their cuddly exterior rather
[[Page S1834]]
than the overwhelming responsibility that comes along with raising an
animal that will grow into a large, wild, predator.
In my home State of Nevada, there is a burgeoning population of
exotic animals being kept as pets. I have been contacted by animal
control centers throughout the State that are called to aid in
situations where a wild tiger or lion has escaped and run amok. In
these situations, not only are the owners and the animal control
professionals in danger, so too are children and other neighbors who
may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. These animals' instinct is
to attack, and they will do so, if given the opportunity. That is why
only highly trained individuals who have the know-how and the resources
should be able to own exotic animals.
In fact, I am informed that officials in Nye County in my home State,
are working to pass a county ordinance that would ban the ownership of
exotic animals because of the threat these animals pose to public
safety. We have the support and backing of the Humane Society of the
United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the
American Zoo and Aquarium Association.
This legislation protects the public, but also ensures that the
animals receive the best care possible from certified and trained
owners. I look forward to having the overwhelming support of my
colleagues in the Senate.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr.
Rockefeller):
S. 270. A bill to provide for additional weeks of temporary extended
unemployment compensation, to provide for a program of temporary
enhanced unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Congress took an important step forward
for working families earlier this month by providing unemployment
benefits for nearly 3 million jobless Americans. These benefits are a
lifeline for the millions of workers who have lost their jobs through
no fault of their own, but as we all know, there is much more work to
be done on this basic issue. One million workers have run out of their
State and Federal benefits and remain without jobs. Clearly, these
workers deserve our help too.
In fact, there is an additional category of workers who have not even
received a dime of unemployment benefits. They paid into the
unemployment insurance fund, and they lost their jobs due to the
failing economy, but they have been left behind by the outdated
eligibility rules in our unemployment laws.
Today, I am introducing the Economic Security Act of 2003 to cover
the 1 million who have exhausted their benefits, as well as the nearly
1 million low-wage and part-time workers currently not eligible for
unemployment benefits, and to increase benefit levels to help keep
families out of poverty during periods of unemployment.
Nationally, only about half of unemployed workers received
unemployment benefits last year. This number has dropped precipitously
since 1975 when 75 percent of unemployed workers received benefits.
This increasingly serious problem is a result of laws implemented in
the 1980s to restrict eligibility for the unemployment insurance
program. Because of these restrictions, many of the unemployed workers
who do not receive benefits today are excluded because they are part-
time or low-wage workers.
In all but 12 States, low-wage workers are ineligible for benefits
because their most recent earnings are not counted. As a result, many
former welfare recipients--success stories who have recently entered
the workforce, have now lost their jobs because of the economic down-
turn, but they are being denied the unemployment benefits they deserve.
Many minimum wage workers, who work hard and play by the rules and have
not seen a raise in 6 years, are also left behind. Those low-income
workers are now left without a safety net.
In addition, the majority of States do not provide benefits to part-
time workers, despite the fact that part-time workers are an essential
part of the labor force. They now comprise nearly 20 percent of the
workforce. Part-time workers also represent a large share of the
unemployed, one in five unemployed workers today were working part-time
before they lost their jobs. Women now represent 70 percent of the
part-time workforce, compared with 44 percent of full-time workers, and
17.5 percent of part-time workers earn less than $15,000 a year.
Despite their significant labor force role, part-time working adults
are half as likely as full-time workers to receive unemployment
insurance benefits. Nationally, only 12 percent of unemployed part-time
workers receive unemployment benefits.
Under the Economic Security Act, the Federal Government will
reimburse States for 1 year for the cost of providing unemployment
benefits to two categories of workers: 1. Those who would be eligible
for regular unemployment compensation if their last completed quarter
of earnings is included in their wage record, and 2. those seeking
part-time employment.
The bill will also provide Federal funds to states to increase the
level of unemployment benefits. Sadly, these benefits today are often
not sufficient to meet basic needs such as paying the rent or putting
food on the table. In 2000, the average unemployment benefit replaced
only 33 percent of workers' lost income, a steep drop from the 46
percent of wages replaced by benefits during the recessions of the
1970's and 1980's. During an economic crisis, unemployed workers have
few opportunities to rejoin a declining workforce. They depend on
unemployment benefits to live.
Raising benefits will enable these workers to support their families
and invest more in the economy. They immediately spend their
unemployment insurance benefits in their communities, and that spending
will provide a needed, immediate stimulus to the economy. In fact,
every dollar spent on unemployment benefits boosts the economy by
$2.15.
The Economic Security Act of 2003 will provide Federal reimbursements
for states which increase their weekly unemployment checks by the
greater of 15 percent or $25 for 1 year. Under this provision, the
average recipient will have an extra $135 a month. Unemployed
households will use this amount to help pay the rent, buy groceries,
keep the family car running, or hire a babysitter during job interview.
This boost in unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and help
these laid-off workers support their families while they look for a new
job.
State unemployment insurance administrators often fall short of the
funds they need to administer benefits efficiently and promptly, and to
see that all who are eligible receive their benefits. The Act provides
$500 million to State Unemployment offices to offset the administrative
expenses associated with implementing the new coverage and benefit
changes, and to provide better employment services to workers receiving
unemployment compensation.
Congress cannot continue to ignore the plight of millions of
Americans hurt by economic forces beyond their control. As we work
together to get the economy moving again, we must also work together to
see that no one is left behind. We have a responsibility to give help
and hope to these deserving Americans by strengthening unemployment
insurance to cover all unemployed workers, and I urge my colleagues to
give high priority to this needed reform.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, and Ms.
Snowe):
S. 271. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an
additional advance refunding of bonds originally issued to finance
governmental facilities used for essential governmental functions; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my friend
and colleague, Senator Corzine, the ``Municipal Debt Refinancing Act of
2003.'' We are pleased to be joined by Senator Schumer and Senator
Snowe in this bipartisan effort. This important legislation will allow
States and localities access to low cost capital during this current
period of fiscal crisis, allowing cities to take advantage of low
interest
[[Page S1835]]
rates by permitting an additional advance refunding of most tax-exempt
governmental bonds. This bill provides Oregon cities like Portland,
Eugene or Salem, all of which issue municipal bonds, with an increased
ability to ease some of the budgetary constraints they currently face.
When interest rates fall, homeowners often seek to refinance their
mortgages to reduce interest costs. Similarly, State and local
governments take advantage of low interest rates by refinancing
outstanding high-cost debt. However, unlike homeowners who can usually
refinance at any time, municipalities can only redeem existing debt on
specific dates, known as call dates. If an issuer would benefit from a
refunding transaction but the existing bonds are not currently eligible
to be called, the issuer can still refinance by executing an ``advance
refunding.'' In this case, the State or local government issues advance
refunding bonds and the proceeds of the new bonds are held in reserve
to pay the interest and principal on the old bonds until they become
callable.
The Federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt bond issuers from advance
refunding most bonds more than once. Therefore, if a bond has been
advance refunded once and interest rates fall to the point where a
State or local government would benefit from an additional advance
refunding, the issuer is precluded from taking advantage of the lower
rates.
Under current law, bonds originally issued after 1985 may only be
advance refunded once. Bonds issued before 1986 may be advance refunded
twice. Second, most private activity bonds may not be advance refunded.
In the past, Congress has considered amending Section 149 of the Code
to allow an additional advance refunding of bonds originally issued to
finance governmental facilities used for ``essential government
functions''.
``Essential government functions,'' as currently defined in tax
regulations, include facilities ``owned by a governmental person and
that are available for use by the general public.'' In practice, such
an approach would likely encompass most bonds issued to finance
facilities owned by State or local governments. One way to limit the
revenue cost of this proposal would be to impose a sunset on the
expanded advance refunding authority. This would also encourage
municipal bond issuers to take advantage of the additional advance
refunding more immediately, maximizing the proposal's potential
economic simulative effect.
State and local access to capital at the lowest possible cost is
critical at this time and vital to Oregon's long-term economic growth.
Further, tax-exempt bonds fund a wide variety of capital infrastructure
projects such as schools, roads and highways, bridges, water and sewer
systems, airports, and parks, among many others. As Oregon faces a
fiscal crisis on such a large scale, this advance refunding is an
innovative way the federal government can help cities and towns provide
vital infrastructure and services for Oregonians. I ask all my
colleagues to join Senator Corzine and me in sponsoring this important
legislation that will help municipalities across this Nation.
I ask unanimous consent to have this legislation printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 271
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 ``Municipal Debt Refinancing
Act''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL ADVANCE REFUNDINGS OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL
BONDS.
(a) In General.--Section 149(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to advance refundings of other
bonds) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II), and
(3) by inserting after subclause (II) the following:
``(III) the 2nd advance refunding of the original bond if
the original bond was issued after 1985 or the 3rd advance
refunding of the original bond if the original bond was
issued before 1986, if, in either case, the refunding bond is
issued before the date which is 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this subclause and the original bond was issued
as part of an issue 90 percent or more of the net proceeds of
which were used to finance governmental facilities used for 1
or more essential governmental functions (within the meaning
of section 141(c)(2)),''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to refunding bonds issued on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Talent, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Miller):
S. 272. A bill to provide incentives for charitable contributions by
individuals and businesses, to improve the public disclosure of
activities of exempt organizations, and to enhance the ability of low
income Americans to gain financial security by building assets, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to express support on behalf of
The Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment, CARE, Act of 2003, which I
am introducing today with Senator Lieberman, Finance Committee Chairman
Grassley, Senator Bayh, Majority Leader Frist and other bipartisan
cosponsors with the support of President Bush. The CARE Act was
introduced in the last Congress and was considered by the Senate
Finance Committee but was never debated on the floor of the Senate
because of repeated objections to unanimous consent requests to bring
up the bill. The time has come to move this important resources package
forward to help those in need and to assist those charitable
organizations walking alongside them to restore families and
communities.
The CARE Act reflects America's renewed spirit of unity, community
and responsibility in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks
and the new challenges that have faced us since then. It is an
important legislative package to encourage giving, saving, and fairness
which builds on the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative.
This bipartisan consensus bill seeks to harness the potential of
charitable organizations in order to better serve the most needy
members of our society in partnership with government efforts. A
coalition of more than 1,600 national and grassroots charitable
organizations helping those in need endorsed nearly similar legislation
last year. The bill offers incentives to individuals and corporations
to increase charitable giving, rewards low-income citizens who choose
to save, and insists on fairness for faith-based organizations by
leveling the playing field so that non-governmental organizations
involved in charitable activities may compete for government funds to
provide social service delivery.
Throughout our country many social entrepreneurs and community
healers are making a difference in the lives of those who are
struggling and in the neighborhoods and communities seeking to revive
themselves in the face of poverty, crime, failing schools, and
unemployment. Many of these heroic individuals and organizations are
also motivated by faith. For example, more than 75 percent of the food
banks across our Nation have a religious affiliation.
The CARE Act attempts to help with the current challenges that
charitable organizations are facing and expand the base of private and
governmental resources well into the future to better help those in
need such as the hungry, the homeless, the addicted, the sick, at-risk
children, and the elderly through a variety of tools and resources. The
tremendous outpouring of generosity by Americans after September 11 is
to be celebrated. Yet the reality is that many needs remain unmet
throughout the country as some charitable giving has been redirected
and other human needs have increased. Unfortunately, as a result of the
tragic events of September 11, a struggling stock market, and the
recent recession, numerous charitable organizations have suffered
financial losses, in some cases, up to 20 percent or more. The bill
seeks to expand the capacity of the voluntary and charitable sectors in
this country which is one of the greatest strengths and traditions of
our country.
The CARE Act seeks to address these needs through a number of
expanded tax incentives. The bill restores a charitable tax deduction
for the 84 million
[[Page S1836]]
Americans who do not itemize for a maximum deduction of up to $250 for
individual taxpayers and $500 for couples for charitable giving beyond
a base level of $250 for individuals and $500 couples. To encourage
larger donations, IRA holders will also be allowed to make charitable
contributions without tax penalties. Corporations and farmers will be
offered tax deductions for their donations of food to charity,
amounting to $1 billion dollars over 10 years in order to provide more
food to the needy rather than letting it go to waste. A deduction is
also provided for contributions of books to schools.
The CARE Act also attempts to narrow the gap between the rich and the
poor. Through Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, low-income
Americans are encouraged to save and build assets and provided training
in financial education. These special savings accounts offer matching
contributions from the sponsoring bank or community organization
reimbursed through a Federal tax credit, on the condition that the
proceeds go to buying a home, starting a business or paying for post-
secondary education. Low-income Americans are now being given the
possibility of sharing in the American dream. The provision would
provide for a phased-in 300,000 savings accounts for a national
demonstration.
The CARE Act helps small faith and community-based organizations.
Through the Compassion Capital Fund, it provides these community
healers with additional resources for technical assistance such as
enabling incorporation, grant writing and accounting skills. It also
allows social service agencies with experience in administering
government contracts to play an intermediate role between government
agencies and smaller charities. These provisions will help smaller
faith-based charities to survive and to grow into viable charitable
organizations. The legislation also expands resources through
significant increases in the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, funds
of more than $1.2 billion.
Despite the positive advantages of the CARE Act, some are wary of the
impact of its provisions. Some critics on the left argue that the
provisions violate the Constitution by fusing church and state because
preferential treatment is given to religious groups. This is false.
Instead, the CARE Act gives religious charitable organizations the
opportunity to compete with secular organizations for Federal funding
by strengthening the principle of nondiscrimination against faith-based
organizations through the codification of basic and commonsense equal
treatment protections. The proposed legislation creates a more level
playing field for faith-based charities by ensuring that they cannot be
discriminated against in applying for government funds because of their
religious nature by ensuring the right to maintain religious icons,
religious names, religious governance criteria, and religious
references in founding documents. The provision also makes clear that
the mere fact that a faith-based provider has not previously received
government funding does not disqualify them from consideration.
On the other hand, some critics on the right argue that the CARE Act
will undermine the religious nature of faith-based organizations by
restricting their abilities to promote religious values and by
controlling the hiring process. But the moral integrity of faith-based
organizations is protected by the Act. Though the question of hiring is
not addressed in the bill, current laws will continue to apply, the
equal treatment for non-governmental organizations provision in the
bill assures that organizations which seek federal funds are not
required to remove religious symbols, change their names, or change
their governing structures to qualify. Hence, faith-based organizations
can still adhere to the values and beliefs that motivate, make them
unique, and reflect the diversity of America as they serve those in
need. The initiative does not require faith-based organizations to
participate with government funds in their efforts to serve those in
need, it merely gives them the option if they feel that doing so is
consistent with their mission and prevents the government for excluding
qualified social services providers merely because they are faith-based
in character.
The CARE Act is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The time
has come to get this legislation on the President's desk as he has
repeatedly called for. The Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, wrote
shortly after the bill's introduction last year that ``the CARE Act is
not a Republican or Democratic plan. it is a bipartisan proposal that
strikes the right balance between harnessing the best forces of faith
in our public life without infringing on the First Amendment . . . I
look forward to working with President Bush and my congressional
colleagues to get this proposal signed into law.''
The time has come for the Senate to pass this important legislation.
The Senate Finance Committee will take an important step next week when
the legislation is considered in committee. The CARE Act advances our
common interest in turning the immense spirit of volunteerism and civic
duty in our country toward building strong communities. The Act's
ultimate goal is to help those most in need in our society, the poor,
the hopeless and the destitute. I thank my colleagues for their support
and the many generous Americans working to transform lives and improve
communities for the difference that they make each day.
____________________