[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.

                          ____________________