[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2188-S2222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Miller, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Bayh, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 339. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify
the application of the excise tax imposed on bows and arrows; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch,
Miller, Bayh and Grassley, I am pleased to introduce the Archery Excise
Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the
Wildlife Restoration Program, the Pittman-Robertson fund, by
simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and
closing an unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside the
United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic
manufacturers.
The creation of the Wildlife Restoration Program is one of the great
success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women,
State fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry.
Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors
volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be
used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat
conservation.
Originally the archery industry did not participate in this program.
However, the growth of bow hunting in the '60s and '70s led the archery
industry to decide they would support the excise tax that funds State
game agencies. As a result, the tax was extended to archery equipment
in 1975. The tax on archery equipment was meant to parallel the tax
that hunters were paying on firearms and ready-to-fire ammunition. The
archery industry and bow hunters are pleased to contribute to the
success of the Wildlife Restoration Program.
Because current law taxes components and not arrows, foreign
manufacturers are selling arrows in the United States without paying
the excise tax
[[Page S2189]]
that is imposed on arrows made in the United States. Not only are these
untaxed imports unfair to American workers, they threaten the integrity
of the Wildlife Restoration Fund.
This issue is important to companies in Montana. Mike Ellig, a
manufacturer of archery products in Bozeman, MT, pays this tax. He
supports the tax, but asks that it be fair. Mike's company, Montana
Black Gold, and the archery industry want to support the Wildlife
Restoration Program. But the way the tax works today, American
manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage. That is why the 800
members of the Montana Bowhunters Association support this measure.
This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows
to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping
the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will
impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from
untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will
be treated equally.
Since this loophole was inadvertently created in 1997, archery
imports, mostly finished arrows, increased from $430,000 in 1998, to
$1.6 million in 1999, to $3.2 million in 2000, to $7.8 million in 2001
and to $11.0 million in 2002, through November. If Congress does not
act quickly to close this loophole, domestic manufacturers will be
forced to relocate outside of the United States. They simply cannot
afford to lose market share for a fifth year to competitors who do not
pay the same tax they pay. If a few more move overseas, the rest will
follow. The result will be a catastrophic loss of revenue for the
Federal Wildlife Restoration Fund.
Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to Congressional intent.
To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife
management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows
with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable
or, in many states, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the
Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on
bows that are suitable for hunting.
The proposal would also clarify that broadheads are an accessory
taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4
percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 Act that led to
the misclassification of broadheads.
In summary, the Arrow Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2001 would
accomplish worthy objectives. It would close the loophole that allows
foreign imported arrows to escape the tax and remove the tax on youth
and recreational archery equipment that were never meant to be taxed.
We will accomplish these goals while protecting the Wildlife
Restoration Program by ensuring that there is no significant diminution
of revenues collected by the archery excise tax. The Joint Committee on
Taxation estimates the proposal will decrease revenues by $5 million
over ten years resulting in small changes in outlays from the Federal
Aid in Wildlife Fund. Failure to close the import loophole will
eviscerate the archery tax base resulting in devastating losses to the
Fund.
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. 339
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 ``Arrow Excise Tax
Simplification Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. SIMPLIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX IMPOSED ON BOWS AND
ARROWS.
(a) Bows.--Section 4161(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to bows) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Bows.--
``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the sale by
the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any bow which has
a draw weight of 30 pounds or more, a tax equal to 11 percent
of the price for which so sold.
``(B) Archery equipment.--There is hereby imposed on the
sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer--
``(i) of any part or accessory suitable for inclusion in or
attachment to a bow described in subparagraph (A), and
``(ii) of any quiver or broadhead suitable for use with an
arrow described in paragraph (3),
a tax equal to 11 percent of the price for which so sold.''.
(b) Arrows.--Section 4161(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to bows and arrows, etc.) is amended by
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and inserting
after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Arrows.--
``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the sale by
the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any arrow, a tax
equal to 12 percent of the price for which so sold.
``(B) Exception.--The tax imposed by subparagraph (A) on an
arrow shall not apply if the arrow contains an arrow shaft
subject to the tax imposed by paragraph (2).
``(C) Arrow.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`arrow' means any shaft described in paragraph (2) to which
additional components are attached.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of section
4161(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
arrows) is amended by striking ``Arrows.--'' and inserting
``Arrow Components.--''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer,
or importer after December 31, 2003.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 341. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as
the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse'';
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on
behalf of Senator Tim Johnson and myself to name the Rapid City United
States Courthouse and Federal Building in honor of Judge Andrew W.
Bogue, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court of the District of South
Dakota.
The administration of justice in western South Dakota is nearly
synonymous with the name of Judge Bogue. He is almost single-handedly
responsible for establishing the Federal district court in Rapid City,
and worked tirelessly to see the Courthouse and Federal Building
constructed there to provide a new home for the administration of
justice in the area.
Judge Bogue was the first resident judge in the western division of
the U.S. District Court District of South Dakota. Before he came along,
judges had to travel into the division from other parts of the State,
and court was held in the ancient Deadwood Territorial Courthouse or in
makeshift courtrooms throughout the 11-county region. Faced with the
logistical hassles of court operations, attorneys were less likely to
use the court system.
After Judge Bogue took the bench, he helped transform the justice
system in western South Dakota. First, he oversaw the establishment of
a new district seat in Rapid City, the population center. Then he
worked alongside South Dakota's congressional delegation to secure
funding for the construction of the Rapid City Federal Building and
United States Courthouse.
During the course of his career as a Federal judge, Bogue has
presided over many high-profile cases, including cases stemming from
American Indian Movement, AIM, uprisings in the 1970s. He has
maintained a reputation for being fair, objective, and compassionate.
Before rising to the U.S. District Court bench, Andrew Bogue was
educated at South Dakota State University. After serving our Nation
with the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, he returned home
to complete a law degree at the University of South Dakota and to marry
his lovely wife Liz. He was admitted to the South Dakota Bar in 1947.
Andrew Bogue again answered the call to defend our country during the
Korean War, serving in the U.S. Army's Judge Advocate General's corps.
Upon his return, he practiced as a private attorney and a State's
Attorney before becoming a South Dakota circuit court judge. He joined
the Federal bench on May 1, 1970, and was elevated to Chief Judge in
1980. He took senior status in 1985.
It is right and fitting that the Rapid City Federal Building and
Courthouse be named for the individual whose legacy pervades its halls.
The legislation Senator Johnson and I introduce today began with an
outpouring of support from Judge Bogue's colleagues. The Pennington
County Bar Association and the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Judges
and Magistrate Judges have
[[Page S2190]]
passed resolutions supporting this initiative. I am proud to offer this
legislation in honor of a great South Dakotan.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 341
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING
AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.
The Federal building and United States courthouse located
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, shall be known
and designated as the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and
United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the Federal building
and United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall
be deemed to be a reference to the Andrew W. Bogue Federal
Building and United States Courthouse.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Alexander):
S. 342. A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
to make improvements to and reauthorize programs under that Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, last year our Nation was stunned by a
videotape of a mother beating her 4 year old daughter in the parking
lot of a shopping center. Yet the unfortunate fact is that each year,
behind closed doors, close to one million children in the United States
are abused or neglected and as a result, are in need of assistance and
out-of-home care.
I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Dodd and
Alexander, in introducing legislation aimed at reducing child abuse and
neglect and mitigating its very damaging impact. The ``Keeping Children
and Families Safe Act of 2003'' reauthorizes four key programs designed
to do just that.
First, we reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act,
CAPTA, which provides grants to States to improve child protection
systems and to support community-based family resource and support
services. CAPTA also authorizes research and demonstration projects
aimed at preventing and treating child abuse and neglect.
The last reauthorization of CAPTA in 1996 made significant changes in
this program to better target limited Federal resources and to enhance
the ability of States to respond to the most serious cases of abuse and
neglect. Unfortunately, the issues facing an overburdened child welfare
system are seldom easily resolved. The Keeping Children and Families
Safe Act will build upon previous changes to CAPTA, by enhancing the
CPS workforce and continuing to ensure that children and families
receive appropriate services and referrals.
The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today encourages
new training and better qualifications for child and family service
workers. With this reauthorization, States can give additional training
to CPS workers on how to best work with families from the time that the
CPS worker walks through the door of a home to the point of treatment
for the child and family.
In 2000, CPS workers nationwide investigated 1.7 million cases of
reported Child Abuse and Neglect. The environments in which CPS workers
conduct these investigations can vary greatly in level of safety. With
this legislation, States will be able to use Federal dollars to provide
some personal safety training for CPS workers for when they enter the
home. Additionally, the rights of families are also addressed during
the initial stages of investigation, by requiring CPS workers to inform
individuals of child maltreatment allegations made against them.
During their investigations, CPS workers encounter a myriad of types
of abuse. In 2000, approximately 63 percent of children who were
victims of maltreatment suffered neglect, 19 percent suffered physical
abuse, 10 percent suffered sexual abuse, and 8 percent suffered
emotional maltreatment. In order to help insure that cases of abuse and
neglect are properly identified, States would be able to provide cross-
training for CPS workers to help them better recognize neglect,
domestic violence or substance abuse in a family. This bill would also
enhance linkages between child protection services and education,
health, mental health, and judicial systems. Further, it would
encourage greater collaboration with the juvenile justice system to
ensure that children who move between these two systems do so smoothly
and receive the proper services.
As a condition of receiving state grant money, we ask States to have
policies and procedures, including referral to CPS, to address the
needs of infants who have been prenatally exposed to illegal
substances. We also require States to perform background checks on all
adults in prospective foster care households. Current law only requires
that checks be performed on the prospective foster care parent.
We have all heard the horrific accounts in the media of those
children who slip through the cracks of the child protective system. It
is our hope that with this reauthorization, which includes an increase
in authorization to $200 million, we can help States to fill some of
those cracks.
The second program we reauthorize is the Adoption Opportunities Act.
This Act is intended to eliminate barriers to adoption and to
provide permanent homes for children, particularly children who are
hard to place, including children with special needs, older children,
and disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.
With 131,000 children currently waiting for adoption, we must improve
upon this program by seeking to further tear down barriers to adoption.
Specifically--we are placing an increased emphasis on the elimination
of inter-jurisdictional barriers to adoption.
This Act would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services to fund public or private entities, including States, to
develop a uniform home-study standard and protocols for acceptance of
home-studies between States and jurisdictions. The Secretary would also
help to facilitate cross-jurisdictional placements by developing models
of financing, expanding capacity of all adoption exchanges to serve
increasing numbers of children, training social workers on preparing
and moving children across State lines, and developing and supporting
models for networking among agencies, adoption exchange, and parent
support groups across jurisdictional boundaries.
Within one year of enactment, the bill would require the Department
of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the General
Accounting Office, to facilitate the inter-jurisdictional adoption of
foster children. Additionally, the bill would also make inter-
jurisdictional adoption issues--including financing and best
practices--a part of a larger study HHS would be required to conduct on
adoption placements. Current law generally allows HHS to fund services
provided by public and nonprofit private agencies only. To help
facilitate this process, we would double the current authorization for
this title from $20 million to $40 million.
Third, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003
reauthorizes the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. This program
authorizes demonstration grants to public and private nonprofit
agencies for activities aimed at preventing the abandonment of infants,
identifying and addressing the needs of abandoned infants, and
recruiting and training foster families for abandoned children.
Currently, grant recipients must ensure that priority for their
services is given to abandoned infants and young children who are HIV-
infected, perinatally exposed to HIV, or perinatally drug-exposed. This
legislation, which includes and increase in authorization to $45
million, would broaden priority for services to include abandoned
infants and young children who have life threatening illnesses or other
special medical needs.
Finally, we reauthorize the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act, FVPSA, which assists in efforts to increase public awareness about
family violence and provide immediate shelter and related assistance to
victims of family violence and their children.
[[Page S2191]]
This reauthorization increases the authorization for the National
Domestic Violence Hotline to $5 million and establishes a National
Domestic Violence Shelter Network to link domestic violence shelters
and service providers and the National Domestic Violence Hotline on a
confidential website. The website would provide a continuously updated
list of shelter availability anywhere in the United States at any time
and would provide comprehensive information describing the services
each shelter provides such as medical, social and bilingual services.
It would also provide internet access to shelters that do not have
appropriate technology.
Domestic violence and child abuse affect thousands upon thousands of
families each year, often with tragic results. In the year 2000 alone,
1200 children died as a consequence of child abuse and neglect, 85
percent of whom were under the age of 6. We must continue our efforts
to stem the tide of abuse to prevent these dreadful results. This
legislation reauthorizes four programs that address the needs of some
of our most at-risk children and families, and I urge my colleagues'
support.
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. 342
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping
Children and Families Safe Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT
Sec. 101. Findings.
Subtitle A--General Program
Sec. 111. National clearinghouse for information relating to child
abuse.
Sec. 112. Research and assistance activities and demonstrations.
Sec. 113. Grants to States and public or private agencies and
organizations.
Sec. 114. Grants to States for child abuse and neglect prevention and
treatment programs.
Sec. 115. Miscellaneous requirements relating to assistance.
Sec. 116. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 117. Reports.
Subtitle B--Community-Based Grants for the Prevention of Child Abuse
Sec. 121. Purpose and authority.
Sec. 122. Eligibility.
Sec. 123. Amount of grant.
Sec. 124. Existing grants.
Sec. 125. Application.
Sec. 126. Local program requirements.
Sec. 127. Performance measures.
Sec. 128. National network for community-based family resource
programs.
Sec. 129. Definitions.
Sec. 130. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Conforming Amendments
Sec. 141. Conforming amendments.
TITLE II--ADOPTION OPPORTUNITIES
Sec. 201. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.
Sec. 202. Information and services.
Sec. 203. Study of adoption placements.
Sec. 204. Studies on successful adoptions.
Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--ABANDONED INFANTS ASSISTANCE
Sec. 301. Findings.
Sec. 302. Establishment of local projects.
Sec. 303. Evaluations, study, and reports by Secretary.
Sec. 304. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 305. Definitions.
TITLE IV--FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES ACT
Sec. 401. State demonstration grants.
Sec. 402. Secretarial responsibilities.
Sec. 403. Evaluation.
Sec. 404. Information and technical assistance centers.
Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 406. Grants for State domestic violence coalitions.
Sec. 407. Evaluation and monitoring.
Sec. 408. Family member abuse information and documentation project.
Sec. 409. Model State leadership grants.
Sec. 410. National domestic violence hotline grant.
Sec. 411. Youth education and domestic violence.
Sec. 412. National domestic violence shelter network.
Sec. 413. Demonstration grants for community initiatives.
Sec. 414. Transitional housing assistance.
Sec. 415. Technical and conforming amendments.
TITLE I--CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Section 2 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``close to 1,000,000''
and inserting ``approximately 900,000'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (11) as
paragraphs (4) through (13), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2)(A) more children suffer neglect than any other form
of maltreatment; and
``(B) investigations have determined that approximately 63
percent of children who were victims of maltreatment in 2000
suffered neglect, 19 percent suffered physical abuse, 10
percent suffered sexual abuse, and 8 percent suffered
emotional maltreatment;
``(3)(A) child abuse can result in the death of a child;
``(B) in 2000, an estimated 1,200 children were counted by
child protection services to have died as a result of abuse
or neglect; and
``(C) children younger than 1 year old comprised 44 percent
of child abuse fatalities and 85 percent of child abuse
fatalities were younger than 6 years of age;'';
(4) by striking paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), and
inserting the following:
``(4)(A) many of these children and their families fail to
receive adequate protection and treatment;
``(B) slightly less than half of these children (45 percent
in 2000) and their families fail to receive adequate
protection or treatment; and
``(C) in fact, approximately 80 percent of all children
removed from their homes and placed in foster care in 2000,
as a result of an investigation or assessment conducted by
the child protective services agency, received no
services;'';
(5) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``organizations'' and
inserting ``community-based organizations'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``ensures'' and all
that follows through ``knowledge,'' and inserting
``recognizes the need for properly trained staff with the
qualifications needed''; and
(C) in subparagraph (E), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, which may impact child rearing patterns,
while at the same time, not allowing those differences to
enable abuse'';
(6) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by striking
``this national child and family emergency'' and inserting
``child abuse and neglect''; and
(7) in paragraph (9) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``intensive'' and inserting ``needed''; and
(B) by striking ``if removal has taken place'' and
inserting ``where appropriate''.
Subtitle A--General Program
SEC. 111. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO
CHILD ABUSE.
(a) Functions.--Section 103(b) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5104(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``all programs,'' and all
that follows through ``neglect; and'' and inserting ``all
effective programs, including private and community-based
programs, that show promise of success with respect to the
prevention, assessment, identification, and treatment of
child abuse and neglect and hold the potential for broad
scale implementation and replication;'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) maintain information about the best practices used
for achieving improvements in child protective systems;'';
and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) provide technical assistance upon request that may
include an evaluation or identification of--
``(A) various methods and procedures for the investigation,
assessment, and prosecution of child physical and sexual
abuse cases;
``(B) ways to mitigate psychological trauma to the child
victim; and
``(C) effective programs carried out by the States under
this Act; and
``(5) collect and disseminate information relating to
various training resources available at the State and local
level to--
``(A) individuals who are engaged, or who intend to engage,
in the prevention, identification, and treatment of child
abuse and neglect; and
``(B) appropriate State and local officials to assist in
training law enforcement, legal, judicial, medical, mental
health, education, and child welfare personnel.''.
(b) Coordination With Available Resources.--Section
103(c)(1) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42
U.S.C. 5104(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``105(a); and'' and
inserting ``104(a);'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) collect and disseminate information that describes
best practices being used throughout the Nation for making
appropriate referrals related to, and addressing, the
physical, developmental, and mental health needs of abused
and neglected children; and''.
[[Page S2192]]
SEC. 112. RESEARCH AND ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
(a) Research.--Section 104(a) of the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5105(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), in the first
sentence, by inserting ``, including longitudinal research,''
after ``interdisciplinary program of research''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including the effects of abuse and neglect
on a child's development and the identification of successful
early intervention services or other services that are
needed'';
(C) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``judicial procedures'' and inserting
``judicial systems, including multidisciplinary, coordinated
decisionmaking procedures''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(D) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) in clause (viii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating clause (ix) as clause (x); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (viii), the following:
``(ix) the incidence and prevalence of child maltreatment
by a wide array of demographic characteristics such as age,
sex, race, family structure, household relationship
(including the living arrangement of the resident parent and
family size), school enrollment and education attainment,
disability, grandparents as caregivers, labor force status,
work status in previous year, and income in previous year;
and'';
(E) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (I);
and
(F) by inserting after subparagraph (C), the following:
``(D) the evaluation and dissemination of best practices
consistent with the goals of achieving improvements in the
child protective services systems of the States in accordance
with paragraphs (1) through (12) of section 106(a);
``(E) effective approaches to interagency collaboration
between the child protection system and the juvenile justice
system that improve the delivery of services and treatment,
including methods for continuity of treatment plan and
services as children transition between systems;
``(F) an evaluation of the redundancies and gaps in the
services in the field of child abuse and neglect prevention
in order to make better use of resources;
``(G) the nature, scope, and practice of voluntary
relinquishment for foster care or State guardianship of low
income children who need health services, including mental
health services;
``(H) the information on the national incidence of child
abuse and neglect specified in clauses (i) through (xi) of
subparagraph (H); and'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, and every
2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall provide an
opportunity for public comment concerning the priorities
proposed under subparagraph (A) and maintain an official
record of such public comment.'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Research.--The Secretary shall conduct research on
the national incidence of child abuse and neglect, including
the information on the national incidence on child abuse and
neglect specified in subparagraphs (i) through (ix) of
paragraph (1)(I).
``(3) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of the
enactment of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of
2003, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions of the Senate a report that contains the results
of the research conducted under paragraph (2).''.
(b) Provision of Technical Assistance.--Section 104(b) of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5105(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``nonprofit private agencies and'' and
inserting ``private agencies and community-based''; and
(B) by inserting ``, including replicating successful
program models,'' after ``programs and activities''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) effective approaches being utilized to link child
protective service agencies with health care, mental health
care, and developmental services to improve forensic
diagnosis and health evaluations, and barriers and shortages
to such linkages.''.
(c) Demonstration Programs and Projects.--Section 104 of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5105)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Demonstration Programs and Projects.--The Secretary
may award grants to, and enter into contracts with, States or
public or private agencies or organizations (or combinations
of such agencies or organizations) for time-limited,
demonstration projects for the following:
``(1) Promotion of safe, family-friendly physical
environments for visitation and exchange.--The Secretary may
award grants under this subsection to entities to assist such
entities in establishing and operating safe, family-friendly
physical environments--
``(A) for court-ordered, supervised visitation between
children and abusing parents; and
``(B) to safely facilitate the exchange of children for
visits with noncustodial parents in cases of domestic
violence.
``(2) Education identification, prevention, and
treatment.--The Secretary may award grants under this
subsection to entities for projects that provide educational
identification, prevention, and treatment services in
cooperation with preschool and elementary and secondary
schools.
``(3) Risk and safety assessment tools.--The Secretary may
award grants under this subsection to entities for projects
that provide for the development of effective and research-
based risk and safety assessment tools relating to child
abuse and neglect.
``(4) Training.--The Secretary may award grants under this
subsection to entities for projects that involve effective
and research-based innovative training for mandated child
abuse and neglect reporters.
``(5) Comprehensive adolescent victim/victimizer prevention
programs.--The Secretary may award grants to organizations
that demonstrate innovation in preventing child sexual abuse
through school-based programs in partnership with parents and
community-based organizations to establish a network of
trainers who will work with schools to implement the program.
The program shall be comprehensive, meet State guidelines for
health education, and should reduce child sexual abuse by
focusing on prevention for both adolescent victims and
victimizers.''.
SEC. 113. GRANTS TO STATES AND PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Demonstration Programs and Projects.--Section 105(a) of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106(a)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking
``Demonstration'' and inserting ``Grants for'';
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``States,'' after ``contracts with,'';
(B) by striking ``nonprofit''; and
(C) by striking ``time limited, demonstration'';
(3) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``nonprofit'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``law, education,
social work, and other relevant fields'' and inserting ``law
enforcement, judiciary, social work and child protection,
education, and other relevant fields, or individuals such as
court appointed special advocates (CASAs) and guardian ad
litem,'';
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``nonprofit'' and all
that follows through ``; and'' and inserting ``children,
youth and family service organizations in order to prevent
child abuse and neglect;'';
(D) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon;
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) for training to support the enhancement of linkages
between child protective service agencies and health care
agencies, including physical and mental health services, to
improve forensic diagnosis and health evaluations and for
innovative partnerships between child protective service
agencies and health care agencies that offer creative
approaches to using existing Federal, State, local, and
private funding to meet the health evaluation needs of
children who have been subjects of substantiated cases of
child abuse or neglect;
``(E) for the training of personnel in best practices to
promote collaboration with the families from the initial time
of contact during the investigation through treatment;
``(F) for the training of personnel regarding the legal
duties of such personnel and their responsibilities to
protect the legal rights of children and families;
``(G) for improving the training of supervisory and
nonsupervisory child welfare workers;
``(H) for enabling State child welfare agencies to
coordinate the provision of services with State and local
health care agencies, alcohol and drug abuse prevention and
treatment agencies, mental health agencies, and other public
and private welfare agencies to promote child safety,
permanence, and family stability;
``(I) for cross training for child protective service
workers in effective and research-based methods for
recognizing situations of substance abuse, domestic violence,
and neglect; and
``(J) for developing, implementing, or operating
information and education programs or training programs
designed to improve the provision of services to disabled
infants with life-threatening conditions for--
``(i) professionals and paraprofessional personnel
concerned with the welfare of disabled infants with life-
threatening conditions, including personnel employed in child
protective services programs and health care facilities; and
``(ii) the parents of such infants.'';
[[Page S2193]]
(4) by redesignating paragraph (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(5) by inserting after paragraph (1), the following:
``(2) Triage procedures.--The Secretary may award grants
under this subsection to public and private agencies that
demonstrate innovation in responding to reports of child
abuse and neglect, including programs of collaborative
partnerships between the State child protective services
agency, community social service agencies and family support
programs, law enforcement agencies, developmental disability
agencies, substance abuse treatment entities, health care
entities, domestic violence prevention entities, mental
health service entities, schools, churches and synagogues,
and other community agencies, to allow for the establishment
of a triage system that--
``(A) accepts, screens, and assesses reports received to
determine which such reports require an intensive
intervention and which require voluntary referral to another
agency, program, or project;
``(B) provides, either directly or through referral, a
variety of community-linked services to assist families in
preventing child abuse and neglect; and
``(C) provides further investigation and intensive
intervention where the child's safety is in jeopardy.'';
(6) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by striking
``nonprofit organizations (such as Parents Anonymous)'' and
inserting ``organizations'';
(7) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking the paragraph heading;
(B) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (C); and
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``(B) Kinship
care.--'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Kinship care.--
``(A) In general.--''; and
(ii) by striking ``nonprofit''; and
(8) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Linkages between child protective service agencies
and public health, mental health, and developmental
disabilities agencies.--The Secretary may award grants to
entities that provide linkages between State or local child
protective service agencies and public health, mental health,
and developmental disabilities agencies, for the purpose of
establishing linkages that are designed to help assure that a
greater number of substantiated victims of child maltreatment
have their physical health, mental health, and developmental
needs appropriately diagnosed and treated, in accordance with
all applicable Federal and State privacy laws.''.
(b) Discretionary Grants.--Section 105(b) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively;
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as so redesignated),
the following:
``(3) Programs based within children's hospitals or other
pediatric and adolescent care facilities, that provide model
approaches for improving medical diagnosis of child abuse and
neglect and for health evaluations of children for whom a
report of maltreatment has been substantiated.''; and
(5) in paragraph (4)(D), by striking ``nonprofit''.
(c) Evaluation.--Section 105(c) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``demonstration'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``or contract''
after ``or as a separate grant''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of an
evaluation performed by the recipient of a grant, the
Secretary shall make available technical assistance for
the evaluation, where needed, including the use of a
rigorous application of scientific evaluation
techniques.''.
(d) Technical Amendment to Heading.--The section heading
for section 105 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (42 U.S.C. 5106) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 105. GRANTS TO STATES AND PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES
AND ORGANIZATIONS.''.
SEC. 114. GRANTS TO STATES FOR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Development and Operation Grants.--Section 106(a) of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``, including ongoing case monitoring,''
after ``case management''; and
(B) by inserting ``and treatment'' after ``and delivery of
services'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``improving'' and all
that follows through ``referral systems'' and inserting
``developing, improving, and implementing risk and safety
assessment tools and protocols'';
(3) by striking paragraph (7);
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), (8), and (9) as
paragraphs (6), (8), (9), and (12), respectively;
(5) by inserting after paragraph (4), the following:
``(5) developing and updating systems of technology that
support the program and track reports of child abuse and
neglect from intake through final disposition and allow
interstate and intrastate information exchange;'';
(6) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by striking
``opportunities'' and all that follows through ``system'' and
inserting ``including--
``(A) training regarding effective and research-based
practices to promote collaboration with the families;
``(B) training regarding the legal duties of such
individuals; and
``(C) personal safety training for case workers;'';
(7) by inserting after paragraph (6) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(7) improving the skills, qualifications, and
availability of individuals providing services to children
and families, and the supervisors of such individuals,
through the child protection system, including improvements
in the recruitment and retention of caseworkers;'';
(8) by striking paragraph (9) (as so redesignated), and
inserting the following:
``(9) developing and facilitating effective and research-
based training protocols for individuals mandated to report
child abuse or neglect;
``(10) developing, implementing, or operating programs to
assist in obtaining or coordinating necessary services for
families of disabled infants with life-threatening
conditions, including--
``(A) existing social and health services;
``(B) financial assistance; and
``(C) services necessary to facilitate adoptive placement
of any such infants who have been relinquished for adoption;
``(11) developing and delivering information to improve
public education relating to the role and responsibilities of
the child protection system and the nature and basis for
reporting suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect;'';
(9) in paragraph (12) (as so redesignated), by striking the
period and inserting a semicolon; and
(10) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) supporting and enhancing interagency collaboration
between the child protection system and the juvenile justice
system for improved delivery of services and treatment,
including methods for continuity of treatment plan and
services as children transition between systems; or
``(14) supporting and enhancing collaboration among public
health agencies, the child protection system, and private
community-based programs to provide child abuse and neglect
prevention and treatment services (including linkages with
education systems) and to address the health needs, including
mental health needs, of children identified as abused or
neglected, including supporting prompt, comprehensive health
and developmental evaluations for children who are the
subject of substantiated child maltreatment reports.''.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Section 106(b) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``provide notice to the Secretary of any
substantive changes'' and inserting the following: `` provide
notice to the Secretary--
``(i) of any substantive changes; and'';
(ii) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) any significant changes to how funds provided under
this section are used to support the activities which may
differ from the activities as described in the current State
application.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi),
(vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), and (xiii) as clauses
(iv), (vi), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv),
(xv), (xvi) and (xvii), respectively;
(ii) by inserting after clause (i), the following:
``(ii) policies and procedures (including appropriate
referrals to child protection service systems and for other
appropriate services) to address the needs of infants born
and identified as being affected by illegal substance abuse
or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure;
``(iii) the development of a plan of safe care for the
infant born and identified as being affected by illegal
substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms;'';
(iii) in clause (iv) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``risk and'' before ``safety'';
(iv) by inserting after clause (iv) (as so redesignated),
the following:
``(v) triage procedures for the appropriate referral of a
child not at risk of imminent harm to a community
organization or voluntary preventive service;'';
(v) in clause (viii)(II) (as so redesignated), by striking
``, having a need for such information in order to carry out
its responsibilities under law to protect children from abuse
and neglect'' and inserting ``, as described in clause
(ix)'';
(vi) by inserting after clause (viii) (as so redesignated),
the following:
``(ix) provisions to require a State to disclose
confidential information to any Federal, State, or local
government entity, or any agent of such entity, that has a
need for such information in order to carry out its
responsibilities under law to protect children from abuse and
neglect;'';
(vii) in clause (xiii) (as so redesignated)--
(I) by inserting ``who has received training appropriate to
the role, and'' after ``guardian ad litem,''; and
(II) by inserting ``who has received training appropriate
to that role'' after ``advocate'';
[[Page S2194]]
(viii) in clause (xv) (as so redesignated), by striking
``to be effective not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section'';
(ix) in clause (xvi) (as so redesignated)--
(I) by striking ``to be effective not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this section''; and
(II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(x) in clause (xvii) (as so redesignated), by striking
``clause (xii)'' each place that such appears and inserting
``clause (xvi)''; and
(xi) by adding at the end the following:
``(xviii) provisions and procedures to require that a
representative of the child protective services agency shall,
at the initial time of contact with the individual subject to
a child abuse and neglect investigation, advise the
individual of the complaints or allegations made against the
individual, in a manner that is consistent with laws
protecting the rights of the informant;
``(xix) provisions addressing the training of
representatives of the child protective services system
regarding the legal duties of the representatives, which may
consist of various methods of informing such representatives
of such duties, in order to protect the legal rights and
safety of children and families from the initial time of
contact during investigation through treatment;
``(xx) provisions and procedures for improving the
training, retention, and supervision of caseworkers; and
``(xxi) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003,
provisions and procedures for requiring criminal background
record checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and
other adult relatives and non-relatives residing in the
household;''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
flush sentence:
``Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to limit the
State's flexibility to determine State policies relating to
public access to court proceedings to determine child abuse
and neglect.''.
(2) Limitation.--Section 106(b)(3) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(3)) is
amended by striking ``With regard to clauses (v) and (vi) of
paragraph (2)(A)'' and inserting ``With regard to clauses
(vi) and (vii) of paragraph (2)(A)''.
(c) Citizen Review Panels.--Section 106(c) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(I) by striking ``and procedures'' and inserting ``,
procedures, and practices''; and
(II) by striking ``the agencies'' and inserting ``State and
local child protection system agencies''; and
(ii) in clause (iii)(I), by striking ``State'' and
inserting ``State and local''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Public outreach.--Each panel shall provide for public
outreach and comment in order to assess the impact of current
procedures and practices upon children and families in the
community and in order to meet its obligations under
subparagraph (A).''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``public'' and inserting ``State and the
public''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``and
recommendations to improve the child protection services
system at the State and local levels. Not later than 6 months
after the date on which a report is submitted by the panel to
the State, the appropriate State agency shall submit a
written response to the citizen review panel that describes
whether or how the State will incorporate the recommendations
of such panel (where appropriate) to make measurable progress
in improving the State and local child protective system''.
(d) Annual State Data Reports.--Section 106(d) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(d)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) The annual report containing the summary of the
activities of the citizen review panels of the State required
by subsection (c)(6).
``(14) The number of children under the care of the State
child protection system who are transferred into the custody
of the State juvenile justice system.''.
(e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prepare and submit to Congress a report that
describes the extent to which States are implementing the
policies and procedures required under section
106(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act.
SEC. 115. MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ASSISTANCE.
Section 108 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5106d) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) GAO Study.--Not later than February 1, 2004, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
survey of a wide range of State and local child protection
service systems to evaluate and submit to Congress a report
concerning--
``(1) the current training (including cross-training in
domestic violence or substance abuse) of child protective
service workers in the outcomes for children and to analyze
and evaluate the effects of caseloads, compensation, and
supervision on staff retention and performance;
``(2) the efficiencies and effectiveness of agencies that
provide cross-training with court personnel; and
``(3) recommendations to strengthen child protective
service effectiveness to improve outcomes for children.
``(e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary should encourage all States and public and
private agencies or organizations that receive assistance
under this title to ensure that children and families with
limited English proficiency who participate in programs under
this title are provided materials and services under such
programs in an appropriate language other than English.
``(f) Annual Report on Certain Programs.--A State that
receives funds under section 106(a) shall annually prepare
and submit to the Secretary a report describing the manner in
which funds provided under this Act, alone or in combination
with other Federal funds, were used to address the purposes
and achieve the objectives of section 105(a)(4)(B).''.
SEC. 116. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) General Authorization.--Section 112(a)(1) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106h(a)(1)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) General authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this title $120,000,000 for fiscal
year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2008.''.
(b) Demonstration Projects.--Section 112(a)(2)(B) of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106h(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary make'' and inserting
``Secretary shall make''; and
(2) by striking ``section 106'' and inserting ``section
104''.
SEC. 117. REPORTS.
Section 110 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5106f) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Study and Report Relating to Citizen Review Panels.--
``(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study by random
sample of the effectiveness of the citizen review panels
established under section 106(c).
``(2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of
2003, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate a report that contains the results of the study
conducted under paragraph (1).''.
Subtitle B--Community-Based Grants for the Prevention of Child Abuse
SEC. 121. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY.
(a) Purpose.--Section 201(a)(1) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5116(a)(1)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) to support community-based efforts to develop,
operate, expand, enhance, and, where appropriate to network,
initiatives aimed at the prevention of child abuse and
neglect, and to support networks of coordinated resources and
activities to better strengthen and support families to
reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect; and''.
(b) Authority.--Section 201(b) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5116(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``Statewide'' and all that follows through the dash, and
inserting ``community-based and prevention-focused programs
and activities designed to strengthen and support families to
prevent child abuse and neglect (through networks where
appropriate) that are accessible, effective, culturally
appropriate, and build upon existing strengths-that--'';
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(C) by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the
following:
``(G) demonstrate a commitment to meaningful parent
leadership, including among parents of children with
disabilities, parents with disabilities, racial and ethnic
minorities, and members of other underrepresented or
underserved groups; and
``(H) provide referrals to early health and developmental
services;''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``through leveraging of funds'' after
``maximizing funding'';
(B) by striking ``a Statewide network of community-based,
prevention-focused'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused''; and
(C) by striking ``family resource and support program'' and
inserting ``programs and activities designed to strengthen
and support families to prevent child abuse and neglect
(through networks where appropriate)''.
(c) Technical Amendment to Title Heading.--Title II of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5116) is
amended by striking the heading for such title and inserting
the following:
``TITLE II--COMMUNITY-BASED GRANTS FOR THE PREVENTION OF CHILD ABUSE
AND NEGLECT''.
SEC. 122. ELIGIBILITY.
Section 202 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5116a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``a Statewide network of community-based,
prevention-focused'' and
[[Page S2195]]
inserting ``community-based and prevention-focused''; and
(ii) by striking ``family resource and support programs''
and all that follows through the semicolon and inserting
``programs and activities designed to strengthen and support
families to prevent child abuse and neglect (through networks
where appropriate);''
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``that exists to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect'' after ``written authority of the State)'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``a network of
community-based family resource and support programs'' and
inserting ``community-based and prevention-focused programs
and activities designed to strengthen and support families to
prevent child abuse and neglect (through networks where
appropriate)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``to the network''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, and parents with disabilities''
before the semicolon;
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``to the network'';
and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Statewide network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect (through networks where appropriate)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Statewide network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect (through networks where appropriate)'';
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and training and
technical assistance, to the Statewide network of community-
based, prevention-focused, family resource and support
programs'' and inserting ``training, technical assistance,
and evaluation assistance, to community-based and prevention-
focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and
support families to prevent child abuse and neglect (through
networks where appropriate)''; and
(D) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, parents with
disabilities,'' after ``children with disabilities''.
SEC. 123. AMOUNT OF GRANT.
Section 203 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5116b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(B)--
(A) by striking ``as the amount leveraged by the State from
private, State, or other non-Federal sources and directed
through the'' and inserting ``as the amount of private, State
or other non-Federal funds leveraged and directed through the
currently designated'';
(B) by striking ``State lead agency'' and inserting ``State
lead entity''; and
(C) by striking ``the lead agency'' and inserting ``the
current lead entity''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``subsection (a)''
and inserting ``subsection (b)''.
SEC. 124. EXISTING GRANTS.
Section 204 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5115c) is repealed.
SEC. 125. APPLICATION.
Section 205 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5116d) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Statewide network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect (through networks where appropriate)'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``network of community-based, prevention-
focused, family resource and support programs'' and inserting
``community-based and prevention-focused programs and
activities designed to strengthen and support families to
prevent child abuse and neglect (through networks where
appropriate)''; and
(B) by striking ``, including those funded by programs
consolidated under this Act,'';
(3) by striking paragraph (3), and inserting the following:
``(3) a description of the inventory of current unmet needs
and current community-based and prevention-focused programs
and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect, and other
family resource services operating in the State;'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``State's network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect'';
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``Statewide network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``start up, maintenance,
expansion, and redesign of community-based and prevention-
focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and
support families to prevent child abuse and neglect'';
(6) in paragraph (7), by striking ``individual community-
based, prevention-focused, family resource and support
programs'' and inserting ``community-based and prevention-
focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and
support families to prevent child abuse and neglect'';
(7) in paragraph (8), by striking ``community-based,
prevention-focused, family resource and support programs''
and inserting ``community-based and prevention-focused
programs and activities designed to strengthen and support
families to prevent child abuse and neglect'';
(8) in paragraph (9), by striking ``community-based,
prevention-focused, family resource and support programs''
and inserting ``community-based and prevention-focused
programs and activities designed to strengthen and support
families to prevent child abuse and neglect'';
(9) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``(where appropriate)''
after ``members'';
(10) in paragraph (11), by striking ``prevention-focused,
family resource and support program'' and inserting
``community-based and prevention-focused programs and
activities designed to strengthen and support families to
prevent child abuse and neglect''; and
(11) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (12).
SEC. 126. LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
Section 206(a) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (42 U.S.C. 5116e(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``prevention-focused, family resource and support programs''
and inserting ``and prevention-focused programs and
activities designed to strengthen and support families to
prevent child abuse and neglect'';
(2) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ``voluntary home
visiting and'' after ``including''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) participate with other community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect in the development, operation and expansion of
networks where appropriate.''.
SEC. 127. PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
Section 207 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5116f) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Statewide network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect'';
(2) by striking paragraph (3), and inserting the following:
``(3) shall demonstrate that they will have addressed unmet
needs identified by the inventory and description of current
services required under section 205(3);'';
(3) in paragraph (4),
(A) by inserting ``and parents with disabilities,'' after
``children with disabilities,''; and
(B) by striking ``evaluation of'' the first place it
appears and all that follows through ``under this title'' and
inserting ``evaluation of community-based and prevention-
focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and
support families to prevent child abuse and neglect, and in
the design, operation and evaluation of the networks of such
community-based and prevention-focused programs'';
(4) in paragraph (5), by striking ``, prevention-focused,
family resource and support programs'' and inserting ``and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect'';
(5) in paragraph (6), by striking ``Statewide network of
community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and
support programs'' and inserting ``community-based and
prevention-focused programs and activities designed to
strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect''; and
(6) in paragraph (8), by striking ``community based,
prevention-focused, family resource and support programs''
and inserting ``community-based and prevention-focused
programs and activities designed to strengthen and support
families to prevent child abuse and neglect''.
SEC. 128. NATIONAL NETWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED FAMILY
RESOURCE PROGRAMS.
Section 208(3) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (42 U.S.C. 5116g(3)) is amended by striking ``Statewide
networks of community-based, prevention-focused, family
resource and support programs'' and inserting ``community-
based and prevention-focused programs and activities designed
to strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect''.
SEC. 129. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Children With Disabilities.--Section 209(1) of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5116h(1))
is amended by striking ``given such term in section
602(a)(2)'' and inserting ``given the term `child with a
disability' in section 602(3) or `infant or toddler with a
disability' in section 632(5)''.
(b) Community-Based and Prevention-Focused Programs and
Activities to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect.--Section 209
of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5116h) is amended by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and
inserting the following:
``(3) Community-based and prevention-focused programs and
activities to prevent child abuse and neglect.--The term
`community-based and prevention-focused programs and
activities designed to strengthen
[[Page S2196]]
and support families to prevent child abuse and neglect'
includes organizations such as family resource programs,
family support programs, voluntary home visiting programs,
respite care programs, parenting education, mutual support
programs, and other community programs or networks of such
programs that provide activities that are designed to prevent
or respond to child abuse and neglect.''.
SEC. 130. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 210 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5116i) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through
2008.''.
Subtitle C--Conforming Amendments
SEC. 141. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
The table of contents of the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act, as contained in section 1(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 5101 note), is amended as follows:
(1) By striking the item relating to section 105 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 105. Grants to States and public or private agencies and
organizations.''.
(2) By striking the item relating to title II and inserting
the following:
``TITLE II--COMMUNITY-BASED GRANTS FOR THE PREVENTION OF CHILD ABUSE
AND NEGLECT''.
(3) By striking the item relating to section 204.
TITLE II--ADOPTION OPPORTUNITIES
SEC. 201. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
Section 201 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and
Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5111) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting
the following:
``(1) the number of children in substitute care has
increased by nearly 24 percent since 1994, as our Nation's
foster care population included more than 565,000 as of
September of 2001;
``(2) children entering foster care have complex problems
that require intensive services, with many such children
having special needs because they are born to mothers who did
not receive prenatal care, are born with life threatening
conditions or disabilities, are born addicted to alcohol or
other drugs, or have been exposed to infection with the
etiologic agent for the human immunodeficiency virus;
``(3) each year, thousands of children are in need of
placement in permanent, adoptive homes;'';
(B) by striking paragraph (6);
(C) by striking paragraph (7)(A) and inserting the
following:
``(7)(A) currently, there are 131,000 children waiting for
adoption;''; and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (7), (8), (9), and
(10) as paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) respectively;
and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
including geographic barriers,'' after ``barriers''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``a national'' and
inserting ``an Internet-based national''.
SEC. 202. INFORMATION AND SERVICES.
Section 203 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and
Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5113) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 203. INFORMATION AND SERVICES.'';
(2) by striking ``Sec. 203. (a) The Secretary'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The Secretary'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``Required Activities.--'' after ``(b)'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``nonprofit'' each place
that such appears;
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``nonprofit'';
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``nonprofit'';
(E) in paragraph (4), by striking ``nonprofit'';
(F) in paragraph (6), by striking ``study the nature,
scope, and effects of'' and insert ``support'';
(G) in paragraph (7), by striking ``nonprofit'';
(H) in paragraph (9)--
(i) by striking ``nonprofit''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(I) in paragraph (10)--
(i) by striking ``nonprofit''; each place that such
appears; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(J) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) provide (directly or by grant to or contract with
States, local government entities, or public or private
licensed child welfare or adoption agencies) for the
implementation of programs that are intended to increase the
number of older children (who are in foster care and with the
goal of adoption) placed in adoptive families, with a special
emphasis on child-specific recruitment strategies,
including--
``(A) outreach, public education, or media campaigns to
inform the public of the needs and numbers of older youth
available for adoption;
``(B) training of personnel in the special needs of older
youth and the successful strategies of child-focused, child-
specific recruitment efforts; and
``(C) recruitment of prospective families for such
children.'';
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``(c)(1) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Services for Families Adopting Special Needs
Children.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(B) by striking ``(2) Services'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Services.--Services''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by realigning the margins of subparagraphs (A) through
(G) accordingly;
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) day treatment; and
``(I) respite care.''; and
(D) by striking ``nonprofit''; each place that such
appears;
(5) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``(d)(1) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Improving Placement Rate of Children in Foster
Care.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(B) by striking ``(2)(A) Each State'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Applications; technical and other assistance.--
``(A) Applications.--Each State'';
(C) by striking ``(B) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Technical and other assistance.--The Secretary'';
(D) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(i) by realigning the margins of clauses (i) and (ii)
accordingly; and
(ii) by striking ``nonprofit'';
(E) by striking ``(3)(A) Payments'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Payments.--
``(A) In general.--Payments''; and
(F) by striking ``(B) Any payment'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Reversion of unused funds.--Any payment''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Elimination of Barriers to Adoptions Across
Jurisdictional Boundaries.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants to, or
enter into contracts with, States, local government entities,
public or private child welfare or adoption agencies,
adoption exchanges, or adoption family groups to carry out
initiatives to improve efforts to eliminate barriers to
placing children for adoption across jurisdictional
boundaries.
``(2) Services to supplement not supplant.--Services
provided under grants made under this subsection shall
supplement, not supplant, services provided using any other
funds made available for the same general purposes
including--
``(A) developing a uniform homestudy standard and protocol
for acceptance of homestudies between States and
jurisdictions;
``(B) developing models of financing cross-jurisdictional
placements;
``(C) expanding the capacity of all adoption exchanges to
serve increasing numbers of children;
``(D) developing training materials and training social
workers on preparing and moving children across State lines;
and
``(E) developing and supporting initiative models for
networking among agencies, adoption exchanges, and parent
support groups across jurisdictional boundaries.''.
SEC. 203. STUDY OF ADOPTION PLACEMENTS.
Section 204 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and
Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5114) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
The'';
(2) by striking ``of this Act'' and inserting ``of the
Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003'';
(3) by striking ``to determine the nature'' and inserting
``to determine--
``(1) the nature'';
(4) by striking ``which are not licensed'' and all that
follows through ``entity'';''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) how interstate placements are being financed across
State lines;
``(3) recommendations on best practice models for both
interstate and intrastate adoptions; and
``(4) how State policies in defining special needs children
differentiate or group similar categories of children.''.
SEC. 204. STUDIES ON SUCCESSFUL ADOPTIONS.
Section 204 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and
Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5114) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(b) Dynamics of Successful Adoption.--The Secretary shall
conduct research (directly or by grant to, or contract with,
public or private nonprofit research agencies or
organizations) about adoption outcomes and the factors
affecting those outcomes. The Secretary shall submit a report
containing the results of such research to the appropriate
committees of the Congress not later than the date that is 36
months after the date of the enactment of the Keeping
Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.
[[Page S2197]]
``(c) Interjurisdictional Adoption.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of the Keeping Children and
Families Safe Act of 2003, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Comptroller General, shall submit to the appropriate
committees of the Congress a report that contains
recommendations for an action plan to facilitate the
interjurisdictional adoption of foster children.''.
SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 205(a) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5115(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``There are authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 2005 through 2008 to carry out programs and activities
authorized under this subtitle.''.
TITLE III--ABANDONED INFANTS ASSISTANCE
SEC. 301. FINDINGS.
Section 2 of the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988
(42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``studies indicate that a number of
factors contribute to'' before ``the inability of'';
(B) by inserting ``some'' after ``inability of'';
(C) by striking ``who abuse drugs''; and
(D) by striking ``care for such infants'' and inserting
``care for their infants'';
(3) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
``(5) appropriate training is needed for personnel working
with infants and young children with life-threatening
conditions and other special needs, including those who are
infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (commonly
known as `HIV'), those who have acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (commonly known as `AIDS'), and those who have been
exposed to dangerous drugs;'';
(4) by striking paragraphs (6) and (7);
(5) in paragraph (8)--
(A) by striking ``such infants and young children'' and
inserting ``infants and young children who are abandoned in
hospitals''; and
(B) by inserting ``by parents abusing drugs,'' after
``deficiency syndrome,'';
(6) in paragraph (9), by striking ``comprehensive
services'' and all that follows through the semicolon at the
end and inserting ``comprehensive support services for such
infants and young children and their families and services to
prevent the abandonment of such infants and young children,
including foster care services, case management services,
family support services, respite and crisis intervention
services, counseling services, and group residential home
services;'';
(7) by striking paragraph (11);
(8) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (8),
(9), and (10) as paragraphs (1) through (7), respectively;
and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) private, Federal, State, and local resources should
be coordinated to establish and maintain services described
in paragraph (7) and to ensure the optimal use of all such
resources.''.
SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL PROJECTS.
Section 101 of the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988
(42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL PROJECTS.'';
and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Priority in Provision of Services.--The Secretary may
not make a grant under subsection (a) unless the applicant
for the grant agrees to give priority to abandoned infants
and young children who--
``(1) are infected with, or have been perinatally exposed
to, the human immunodeficiency virus, or have a life-
threatening illness or other special medical need; or
``(2) have been perinatally exposed to a dangerous drug.''.
SEC. 303. EVALUATIONS, STUDY, AND REPORTS BY SECRETARY.
Section 102 of the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988
(42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 102. EVALUATIONS, STUDY, AND REPORTS BY SECRETARY.
``(a) Evaluations of Local Programs.--The Secretary shall,
directly or through contracts with public and nonprofit
private entities, provide for evaluations of projects carried
out under section 101 and for the dissemination of
information developed as a result of such projects.
``(b) Study and Report on Number of Abandoned Infants and
Young Children.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
the purpose of determining--
``(A) an estimate of the annual number of infants and young
children relinquished, abandoned, or found deceased in the
United States and the number of such infants and young
children who are infants and young children described in
section 101(b);
``(B) an estimate of the annual number of infants and young
children who are victims of homicide;
``(C) characteristics and demographics of parents who have
abandoned an infant within 1 year of the infant's birth; and
``(D) an estimate of the annual costs incurred by the
Federal Government and by State and local governments in
providing housing and care for abandoned infants and young
children.
``(2) Deadline.--Not later than 36 months after the date of
enactment of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of
2003, the Secretary shall complete the study required under
paragraph (1) and submit to Congress a report describing the
findings made as a result of the study.
``(c) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate and report
on effective methods of intervening before the abandonment of
an infant or young child so as to prevent such abandonments,
and effective methods for responding to the needs of
abandoned infants and young children.''.
SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 104 of the Abandoned Infants
Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Authorization.--For the purpose of carrying out this
Act, there are authorized to be appropriated $45,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 2005 through 2008.
``(2) Limitation.--Not more than 5 percent of the amounts
appropriated under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year may be
obligated for carrying out section 102(a).'';
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``Authorization.--'' after ``(1)'' the
first place it appears; and
(ii) by striking ``this title'' and inserting ``this Act'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``Limitation.--'' after ``(2)''; and
(ii) by striking ``fiscal year 1991.'' and inserting
``fiscal year 2003.''; and
(4) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively.
(b) Redesignation.--The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of
1988 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 104 as section 302; and
(2) by moving that section 302 to the end of that Act.
SEC. 305. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 301 of the Abandoned Infants
Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Abandoned; abandonment.--The terms `abandoned' and
`abandonment', used with respect to infants and young
children, mean that the infants and young children are
medically cleared for discharge from acute-care hospital
settings, but remain hospitalized because of a lack of
appropriate out-of-hospital placement alternatives.
``(2) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome.--The term
`acquired immune deficiency syndrome' includes infection with
the etiologic agent for such syndrome, any condition
indicating that an individual is infected with such etiologic
agent, and any condition arising from such etiologic agent.
``(3) Dangerous drug.--The term `dangerous drug' means a
controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
``(4) Natural family.--The term `natural family' shall be
broadly interpreted to include natural parents, grandparents,
family members, guardians, children residing in the
household, and individuals residing in the household on a
continuing basis who are in a care-giving situation, with
respect to infants and young children covered under this Act.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 103 of the Abandoned Infants
Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is repealed.
TITLE IV--FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES ACT
SEC. 401. STATE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS.
(a) Underserved Populations.--Section 303(a)(2)(C) of the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C.
10402(a)(2)(C)) is amended by striking ``underserved
populations,'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``underserved populations, as defined in section
2007 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2);''.
(b) Report.--Section 303(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
10402(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Upon completion of the activities funded by a grant
under this title, the State shall submit to the Secretary a
report that contains a description of the activities carried
out under paragraph (2)(B)(i).''.
(c) Children Who Witness Domestic Violence.--Section 303 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 10402) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) For a fiscal year described in section 310(a)(2), the
Secretary shall use funds made available under that section
to make grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities
for projects designed to address the needs of children who
witness domestic violence, to--
``(1) provide direct services for children who witness
domestic violence;
[[Page S2198]]
``(2) provide for training for and collaboration among
child welfare agencies, domestic violence victim service
providers, courts, law enforcement, and other entities; and
``(3) provide for multisystem interventions for children
who witness domestic violence.''.
SEC. 402. SECRETARIAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
Section 305(a) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10404(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``an employee'' and inserting ``1 or more
employees'';
(2) by striking ``of this title.'' and inserting ``of this
title, including carrying out evaluation and monitoring under
this title.''; and
(3) by striking ``The individual'' and inserting ``Any
individual''.
SEC. 403. EVALUATION.
Section 306 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10405) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``Not later than two years after the date on which
funds are obligated under section 303(a) for the first time
after the date of the enactment of this title, and every two
years thereafter,'' and inserting ``Every 2 years,''.
SEC. 404. INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS.
Section 308 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10407) is amended by striking subsection (g).
SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) General Authorization.--Section 310(a) of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10409(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out sections 303 through 311,
$175,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
``(2) Projects to address needs of children who witness
domestic violence.--For a fiscal year in which the amounts
appropriated under paragraph (1) exceed $150,000,000, the
Secretary shall reserve and make available 50 percent of the
excess to carry out section 303(c).''.
(b) Allocations for Other Programs.--Subsections (b), (c),
and (d) of section 310 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 10409) are
amended by inserting ``(and not reserved under subsection
(a)(2))'' after ``each fiscal year''.
(c) Grants for State Domestic Violence Coalitions.--Section
311(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 10410(g)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(g) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated under section
310(a) for a fiscal year (and not reserved under section
310(a)(2)), not less than 10 percent of such amount shall be
made available to award grants under this section.''.
SEC. 406. GRANTS FOR STATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITIONS.
Section 311 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10410) is amended by striking subsection (h).
SEC. 407. EVALUATION AND MONITORING.
Section 312 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10412) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Of the amount appropriated under section 310(a) for
each fiscal year (and not reserved under section 310(a)(2)),
not more than 2.5 percent shall be used by the Secretary for
evaluation, monitoring, and other administrative costs under
this title.''.
SEC. 408. FAMILY MEMBER ABUSE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION
PROJECT.
Section 313 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10413) is repealed.
SEC. 409. MODEL STATE LEADERSHIP GRANTS.
Section 315 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10415) is repealed.
SEC. 410. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE GRANT.
(a) Duration.--Section 316(b) of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A grant'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
grant''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Extension.--The Secretary may extend the duration of
a grant under this section beyond the period described in
paragraph (1) if, prior to such extension--
``(A) the entity prepares and submits to the Secretary a
report that evaluates the effectiveness of the use of amounts
received under the grant for the period described in
paragraph (1) and contains any other information the
Secretary may prescribe; and
``(B) the report and other appropriate criteria indicate
that the entity is successfully operating the hotline in
accordance with subsection (a).''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 316(f) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(f)) is repealed.
SEC. 411. YOUTH EDUCATION AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Section 317 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10417) is repealed.
SEC. 412. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER NETWORK.
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act is amended
by inserting after section 316 (42 U.S.C. 10416) the
following:
``SEC. 317. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER NETWORK.
``(a) In General.--For a year in which the Secretary makes
an amount available under subsection (g)(2), the Secretary
shall award a grant to a nonprofit organization to establish
and operate a highly secure Internet website (referred to in
this section as the `website') that shall--
``(1) link, to the greatest extent possible, entities
consisting of the entity providing the national domestic
violence hotline, participating domestic violence shelters in
the United States, State and local domestic violence
agencies, and other domestic violence organization, so that
such entities will be able to connect a victim of domestic
violence to the most safe, appropriate, and convenient
domestic violence shelter; and
``(2) contain, to the maximum extent practicable,
continuously updated information concerning the availability
of services and space in domestic violence shelters across
the United States.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, a nonprofit organization shall submit to
the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
The application shall--
``(1) demonstrate the experience of the applicant in
successfully developing and managing a technology-based
network of domestic violence shelters;
``(2) demonstrate a record of success of the applicant in
meeting the needs of domestic violence victims and their
families; and
``(3) include a certification that the applicant will--
``(A) implement a high level security system to ensure the
confidentiality of the website;
``(B) establish, within 5 years, a website that links the
entities described in subsection (a)(1);
``(C) consult with the entities described in subsection
(a)(1) in developing and implementing the website and
providing Internet connections; and
``(D) otherwise comply with the requirements of this
section.
``(c) Use of Grant Award.--The recipient of a grant award
under this section shall--
``(1) collaborate with officials of the Department of
Health and Human Services in a manner determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary;
``(2) collaborate with the entity providing the national
domestic violence hotline in developing and implementing the
network;
``(3) ensure that the website is continuously updated and
highly secure;
``(4) ensure that the website provides information
describing the services of each domestic violence shelter to
which the website is linked, including information for
individuals with limited English proficiency and information
concerning access to medical care, social services,
transportation, services for children, and other relevant
services;
``(5) ensure that the website provides up-to-the-minute
information on available bed space in domestic violence
shelters across the United States, to the maximum extent
practicable;
``(6) provide training to the staff of the hotline and to
staff of the other entities described in subsection (a)(1)
regarding how to use the website to best meet the needs of
callers;
``(7) provide Internet access, and hardware in necessary
cases, to domestic violence shelters in the United States
that do not have the appropriate technology for such access,
to the maximum extent practicable; and
``(8) ensure that after the third year of the website
project, the recipient will develop a plan to expand the
sources of funding for the website to include funding from
public and private entities, although nothing in this
paragraph shall preclude a grant recipient under this section
from raising funds from other sources at any time during the
5-year grant period.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to require any shelter or service provider, whether
public or private, to be linked to the website or to provide
information to the recipient of the grant award or to the
website.
``(e) Duration of Grant.--The term of a grant awarded under
this section shall be 5 years.
``(f) Technical Assistance and Oversight.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) provide technical assistance, if requested, on
developing and managing the website; and
``(2) have access to, and monitor, the website.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out section 316 and this section, $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each
of fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
``(2) Conditions on appropriations.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make available a portion
of the amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) to carry out
this section only for any fiscal year for which the amounts
appropriated under paragraph (1) exceed $3,000,000.
``(3) Administrative costs.--Of the amount made available
to carry out this section for a fiscal year the Secretary may
not use more than 2 percent for administrative costs
associated with the grant program carried out under this
section, of which not more than 5 percent shall be used to
assist the entity providing the national domestic violence
hotline to participate in the establishment of the website.
``(4) Availability.--Funds appropriated under paragraph (1)
shall remain available until expended.''.
[[Page S2199]]
SEC. 412. DEMONSTRATION GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY INITIATIVES.
(a) In General.--Section 318(h) of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10418(h)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $6,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.
(b) Regulations.--Section 318 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 10418)
is amended by striking subsection (i).
SEC. 414. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.
Section 319(f) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10419(f)) is amended by striking
``fiscal year 2001'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years
2004 through 2008''.
SEC. 415. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C.
10401 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 302(1) (42 U.S.C. 10401(1)) by striking
``demonstrate the effectiveness of assisting'' and inserting
``assist'';
(2) in section 303(a) (42 U.S.C. 10402(a))--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``State domestic
violence coalitions knowledgeable individuals and interested
organizations'' and inserting ``State domestic violence
coalitions, knowledgeable individuals, and interested
organizations''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by aligning the margins of paragraph (4) with the
margins of paragraph (3);
(3) in section 303(g) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``309(4)'' and
inserting ``320''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``309(5)(A)'' and
inserting ``320(5)(A)'';
(4) in section 305(b)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 10404(b)(2)(A)) by
striking ``provide for research, and into'' and inserting
``provide for research into'';
(5) by redesignating section 309 as section 320 and moving
that section to the end of the Act; and
(6) in section 311(a) (42 U.S.C. 10410(a))--
(A) in paragraph (2)(K), by striking ``other criminal
justice professionals,;'' and inserting ``other criminal
justice professionals;'' and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``family law judges,,'' and inserting ``family law judges,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, criminal court
judges,'' after ``family law judges''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``supervised
visitations that do not endanger victims and their children''
and inserting ``supervised visitations or denial of
visitation to protect against danger to victims or their
children''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
introducing the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. This
Act continues our Federal commitment to ensuring that the Nation's most
vulnerable children are protected and safe.
Recent cases of abuse and neglect have made national headlines as
local authorities have failed to identify abused children. These
failures have led to tragic consequences--the deaths of innocent and
unprotected children.
Clearly, we must do better--at the national, State, and local levels.
And the bill we introduce today will enhance the Federal partnership
with local officials to bring greater protection to our children.
Since 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA,
has been a great support in reaching the nearly 900,000 children who
suffer abuse and neglect each year. This year's bipartisan
reauthorization of CAPTA will continue and expand that support through
FY 2008, and extend CAPTA's related programs, including the Abandoned
Infants Assistance Act, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act.
Child abuse and neglect continues to be a serious and daunting
problem in our nation. In local communities, child protective services
agencies bear the responsibility of receiving and investigating reports
of child abuse and neglect. Each year those agencies respond to nearly
3 million reports of abuse. It is a tremendous challenge, and
caseworkers in local agencies perform an admirable task worthy of our
thanks.
But despite the hard work of child protective services, nearly half
of all children in substantiated cases of abuse receive no follow-up
services or support. In 2000, over 900 children under the age of 6 died
of abuse and neglect. Those children in desperate circumstances need
and deserve our help, and we must do better.
The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act will bring us closer
toward our goal of responding more effectively to child abuse and
neglect. Our bipartisan bill encourages better training and
qualifications for child abuse caseworkers, creates linkages to better
facilitate referrals for neglected children, and coordinates best
practices to improve systems that currently serve and protect children.
Actions to prevent and address child abuse and neglect must be
strengthened and expanded. This bill will improve current systems of
child abuse treatment by coordinating information on best practices
among child protective services agencies through the National Child
Abuse Clearinghouse, and disseminating those practices that hold
promise to improve systems. The bill will also ensure that local
citizen review panels oversee, review, and bolster the practices of
child protective services. Access to technical assistance and grants
will also be broadened to private entities working to prevent and treat
child abuse.
The identification and treatment of abused children cannot be
improved without better preparation of those responsible for
investigating abuse and neglect. By improving the training, retention,
and supervision of child protective caseworkers, the bill will ensure
that children receive the help they need. New training will help
caseworkers become familiar with their legal duties and receive
guidance on how to best work with families. Training will also be
provided to protect the personal safety of caseworkers as they enter
homes to investigate allegations of abuse.
More must also be done to ensure that abused children receive ongoing
support and services. This bill will encourage states to adopt a
comprehensive approach to treating and preventing abuse by linking
child protective services and education, health, mental health, and
judicial systems to more effectively follow-up with support and
services to abused and neglected children. The bill will also promote
partnerships between public agencies and community-based organizations
to support child abuse prevention and treatment.
I am pleased that the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act
continues the legacy of the late Senator Wellstone in combating
domestic violence and addressing its impact on children. It is
estimated that 10 million children witness physical abuse between their
parents each year, damaging their emotional and physical well being,
and causing difficulties later in life.
Under this Act, new grants will be awarded, once appropriations for
the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act reach $150 million, to
address the physical and emotional needs of children who witness
violence in their homes. Those funds will support direct services and
interventions for children who witness domestic violence, bringing
together child welfare agencies, courts, law enforcement, and other
appropriate entities.
This Act also supports a new electronic network to connect victims of
domestic violence and support organizations and networks in local
communities. This network will enhance the current national domestic
violence hotline, which serves as a vital resource for victims of
domestic abuse 24-hours-a-day, 365 days a year. The hotline currently
provides support and assistance to 300 to 400 callers a day.
We must do more to help children and their families overcome the
harmful effects of abuse, neglect, and violence. The Keeping Children
and Families Safe Act of 2003 is a step in the right direction toward
that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Gregg,
Senator Kennedy, and Senator Alexander in introducing the Keeping
Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.
The bill we are introducing today would strengthen efforts to prevent
child abuse and neglect, promote increased sharing of information and
partnerships between child protective services and education, health,
and juvenile justice systems, and encourage a variety of new training
programs to improve child protection, particularly cross-training in
recognizing domestic violence and substance abuse in addition to child
abuse detection and protection training.
The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 renews grants to
States to improve child protection systems and increases to $200
million the
[[Page S2200]]
authorization for child abuse investigations, training of child
protection service, CPS, workers, and community child abuse prevention
programs. For States to receive funding, they must meet several new
requirements: have triage procedures to provide appropriate referrals
of a child ``not at risk of imminent harm'' to a community organization
or for voluntary preventive services; have policies in place to address
the needs of infants who are born and identified as having been
physically affected by prenatal exposure to illegal drugs, which must
include a safe plan of care for the child; have policies for improved
training, retention, and supervision of caseworkers; and require
criminal background record checks for prospective foster and adoptive
parents and all other adults living in the household, not later than 2
years after the law's enactment.
Child abuse and neglect continue to be significant problems in the
United States.
About 3 million referrals concerning the welfare of about 5 million
children were made to Child Protection Services, CPS, agencies
throughout the Nation in 2000. Of these referrals, about two-thirds, 62
percent, were ``screened-in'' for further assessment and investigation.
Professionals, including teachers, law enforcement officers, social
service workers, and physicians made more than half, 56 percent, of the
screened-in reports. About 879,000 children were found to be victims of
child maltreatment. About two-thirds, 63 percent, suffered neglect,
including medical neglect; 19 percent were physically abused; 10
percent were sexually abused; and 8 percent were emotionally
maltreated.
Many of these children fail to receive adequate protection and
services. Nearly half, 45 percent, of these children failed to receive
services.
The most tragic consequence of child maltreatment is death. The April
maltreatment summary data released by the Department of Health and
Human Services, HHS, shows that about 1,200 children died of abuse and
neglect in 2000. Children younger than six years of age accounted for
85 percent of child fatalities and children younger than one year of
age accounted for 44 percent of child fatalities.
Child abuse is not a new phenomenon. For more than a decade, numerous
reports have called attention to the tragic abuse and neglect of
children and the inadequacy of our Child Protection Services, CPS,
systems to protect our children.
In 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded
that ``child abuse and neglect is a national emergency.'' In 1995, the
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reported that ``State
and local CPS caseworkers are often overextended and cannot adequately
function under their current caseloads.'' The report also stated that,
``in many jurisdictions, caseloads are so high that CPS response is
limited to taking the complaint call, making a single visit to the
home, and deciding whether or not the complaint is valid, often without
any subsequent monitoring of the family.''
A 1997 General Accounting Office, GAO, report found, ``the CPS system
is in crisis, plagued by difficult problems, such as growing caseloads,
increasingly complex social problems and underlying child maltreatment,
and ongoing systemic weaknesses in day-to-day operations.'' According
to GAO, CPS weaknesses include ``difficulty in maintaining a skilled
workforce; the inability to consistently follow key policies and
procedures designed to protect children; developing useful case data
and record-keeping systems, such as automated case management; and
establishing good working relationships with the courts.''
According to the May 2001 ``Report from the Child Welfare Workforce
Survey: State and County Data and Findings'' conducted by the American
Public Human Services Association, APHSA, the Child Welfare League of
America, CWLA, and the Alliance for Children and Families, annual staff
turnover is high and morale is low among CPS workers. The report found
that CPS workers had an annual turnover rate of 22 percent, 76 percent
higher than the turnover rate for total agency staff. The
``preventable'' turnover rate was 67 percent, or two-thirds higher than
the rate for all other direct service workers and total agency staff.
In some States, 75 percent or more of staff turnovers were preventable.
States rated a number of retention issues as highly problematic. In
descending order they are: workloads that are too high and/or
demanding; caseloads that are too high; too much worker time spent on
travel, paperwork, courts, and meetings; workers not feeling valued by
the agency; low salaries; supervision problems; and insufficient
resources for families and children.
To prevent turnover and retain quality CPS staff, some States have
begun to increase in-service training, increase education
opportunities, increase supervisory training, increase or improve
orientation, increase worker safety, and offer flex-time or changes in
office hours. Most States, however, continue to grapple with staff
turnover and training issues.
Continued public criticism of CPS efforts, continued frustration by
CPS staff and child welfare workers, and continued abuse and neglect,
and death, of our nation's children, served as the backdrop as we put
together the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA,
reauthorization bill this year.
The Child Protection System mission must focus on the safety of
children. To ensure that the system works as intended, CPS needs to be
appropriately staffed. The staff need to receive appropriate training
and cross-training to better recognize substance abuse and domestic
violence problems. The bill we are introducing today encourages triage
approaches and differential response systems so that those reports
where children are most at-risk of imminent harm can be prioritized.
The bill specifically emphasizes collaborations in communities between
CPS, health agencies, including mental health agencies, schools, and
community-based groups to help strengthen families and provide better
protection for children. The bill provides grants for prevention
programs and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect for families
at-risk to improve the likelihood that a child will grow up in a home
without violence, abuse, or neglect.
Beyond the CAPTA title of this legislation, our bill reauthorizes the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, including new efforts to
address the needs of children who witness domestic violence, the
Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act.
Child protection ought not be a partisan issue. This bill will help
ensure that it is not. I want to commend and thank my co-authors--
Chairman Gregg, Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander--for their
efforts to craft a bipartisan initiative that can help to prevent and
alleviate suffering among our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues
to join us in supporting this bill and to strengthen child protection
laws early this year.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 343. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
permit direct payment under the medicare program for clinical social
worker services provided to residents of skilled nursing facilities; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Clinical
Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2003.'' I am proud to sponsor this
legislation that will include clinical social workers among other
mental health providers that are exempted from the Medicare Part B
Prospective Payment System. This bill will ensure that clinical social
workers can receive Medicare reimbursements for the mental health
services they provide in skilled nursing facilities.
Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and
strengthen the safety for our Nation's seniors. Making sure that
seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an
important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not
have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they
need. For example, depression affects nearly 6 million seniors, but
only one-tenth ever get treated. This is unacceptable. Clinical social
workers
[[Page S2201]]
may also be the only mental health providers in some rural areas.
Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers can help make
sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable
mental health care they need.
Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists,
treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers
are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents. But
unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot
bill directly for the important services they provide to their
patients. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical
social workers get the payments and respect they deserve.
Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers
billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in
nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the Prospective
Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are
lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care
providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and
psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this
system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt
clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the
Prospective Payment System, and would make sure that clinical social
workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled
nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but
this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that
clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care
they provide.
This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This
bill is about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and
important work done by clinical social workers. It is also about making
sure our Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality,
affordable mental health care. Without clinical social workers, many
nursing home residents may never get the counseling they need when
faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I
think we can do better by our nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to
make sure we do.
The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2003 is strongly
supported by the National Association of Social Workers. I ask
unanimous consent that a letter of endorsement from the National
Association of Social Workers be printed in the Record. I also want to
thank Senators Johnson, Murray, Stabenow, Corzine, Inouye, and Bingaman
for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to enact this important legislation.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Association
of Social Workers,
Washington, DC, February 10, 2003.
Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: I am writing on behalf of the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the largest
professional social work organization with nearly 150,000
members nationwide. NASW promotes, develops, and protects the
effective practice of social work and social workers. NASW
also seeks to enhance the well being of individuals,
families, and communities through its work, service, and
advocacy.
NASW strongly supports the Clinical Social Work Medicare
Equity Act of 2003 which will end the unfair treatment of
clinical social workers under the Medicare Part B Prospective
Payment System (PPS) for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs).
Section 4432 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized
the creation of the PPS, under which the cost of a variety of
daily services provided to SNF patients is bundled into a
single amount. Prior to PPS, a separate Medicare Part B claim
was filed by the provider for each individual service
rendered to a patient. Congress made this change in an
attempt to captitate the rapidly rising costs of additional
patient services delivered by Medicare providers to SNF
patients, with the precise target being physical,
occupational, and speech-language therapy services. However,
Congress recognized that some services, such as mental health
and anesthesia, are best provided on an individual basis
rather than as part of the bundle of services. Thus, the
following types of providers are specifically excluded from
the PPS: physicians, clinical psychologists, certified nurse-
midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists.
Unfortunately, due to an unintentional oversight during the
drafting process, clinical social workers were not listed
among the aforementioned providers in the legislation.
In 1996, Department of Health and Human Services Inspector
General June Gibbs Brown published a report entitled ``Mental
Health Services in Nursing Facilities''. The purpose of the
report was to describe the types of mental health services
provided in nursing facilities and identify potential
vulnerabilities in the mental health services covered by
Medicare. One critical funding of the report was 70% of
nursing home respondents stated that permitting clinical
social workers and clinical psychologists to bill
independently had a beneficial effect on the provision of
mental health services in nursing facilities. The Clinical
Social Work Medicare Equity will maintain this beneficial
effect on SNF patients by ensuring the continuation of direct
Medicare billing by clinical social workers for mental health
services rendered to SNF patients.
Your efforts on behalf of mental health patients and
professionals nationwide are greatly appreciated by our
members. We thank you for your strong interest in and
commitment to this important issue as demonstrated by your
sponsorship of the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act.
Please do not hesitate to contact Francesca Fierro O'Reilly
of my staff at 202-408-8600 x336 should you require anything
further. NASW looks forward to working with you on this and
future issues of mutual concern.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth J. Clark,
PhD, ACSW, MPH, Executive Director.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 344. A bill expressing the policy of the United States regarding
the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a
process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my
friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, which
would clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and
the United States. This measure would extend the Federal policy of
self-determination and self-governance to Hawaii's indigenous, native
peoples--Native Hawaiians, by providing a process for the reorganized
Native Hawaiian governing entity to be recognized for the purposes of a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
The bill we introduce today is identical to legislation that was
reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs during the 107th
Congress. This bill does three things. First if provides a process for
Federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Second, it
establishes an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on
Native Hawaiian issues and to serve as a liaison between Native
Hawaiians and the Federal Government. Finally, it establishes an
interagency coordinating group to be composed of representatives of
federal agencies which administer programs and implement policies
impacting Native Hawaiians.
While Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have paralleled that
of Native American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of
self-determination and self-governance has not yet been extended to
Native Hawaiians. This measure extends this policy to Native Hawaiians,
thus furthering the process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians
and the United States, and providing parity in the Federal Government's
interactions with American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians.
This measure does not establish entitlements or special treatment for
Native Hawaiians based on race. This measure focuses on the political
relationship afforded to Native Hawaiians based on the United States'
recognition of Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous peoples
of Hawaii. While the United States' history with its indigenous peoples
has been dismal, in recent decades, the United States has engaged in a
policy of self-determination and self-governance with its indigenous
peoples. Government-to-government relationships provide indigenous
peoples with the opportunity to work directly with the Federal
Government on policies affecting their lands, natural resources and
many other aspects of their well-being.
This measure does not impact program funding for American Indians and
Alaska Natives. Federal programs for Native Hawaiian health, education,
and housing are already administered by
[[Page S2202]]
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing
and Urban Development. The bill I introduce today contains a provision
which makes clear that this bill does not authorize new eligibility for
participation in any programs and services provided by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. This bill does not authorize gaming in Hawaii. In fact,
it clearly states that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, does not
apply to the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
Finally, this measure does not preclude Native Hawaiians from seeking
alternatives in the international arena. This measure focuses on self-
determination within the framework of Federal law and seeks to
establish equality in the Federal policies extended towards American
Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
We introduced similar legislation during the 106th and 107th
Congresses. A previous version of this legislation was passed by the
House of Representatives during the 106th Congress. The legislation is
widely supported by our indigenous brethren, American Indians and
Alaska Natives. It is also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature
which passed two resolutions supporting a government-to-government
relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Similar
resolutions have been passed by the Alaska Federation of Natives,
National Congress of American Indians, Japanese American Citizens'
League, and the National Education Association.
The essence of Hawaii is captured not by the physical beauty of its
islands, but by the beauty of its people. Those who have lived in
Hawaii have a unique demeanor and attitude which is appropriately
described as the ``aloha'' spirit. The people of Hawaii demonstrate the
aloha spirit through their actions--through their generosity, through
their appreciation of the environment and natural resources, through
their willingness to care for each other, through their genuine
friendliness.
The people of Hawaii share many ethnic backgrounds and cultures. This
mix of culture and tradition is based on the unique history of Hawaii.
The Aloha spirit is the legacy of the pride we all share in the culture
and tradition of Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples, the Native
Hawaiians. Hawaii's State motto, ``Ua mau ke'ea `o ka `aina i ka
pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in
righteousness,'' captures the culture of Native Hawaiians. Prior to
western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society, in
distinct and structured communities steeped in science. The Native
Hawaiians honored their `aina, land, and environment, and therefore
developed methods of irrigation, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation,
medicine, fishing and other forms of subsistence whereby the land and
sea were efficiently used without waste or damage. Respect for the
environment formed the basis of their culture and tradition. It is from
this culture and tradition that the Aloha spirit, which is demonstrated
throughout Hawaii, by all of its people, has endured and flourished.
Despite the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians
never directly relinquished their inherent sovereignty as a people over
their national lands, either through their government or through a
plebiscite or referendum. Ever since the overthrow of their government,
Native Hawaiians have sought to maintain political authority within
their community. The Federal policy of self-governance and self-
determination recognizes and provides for this inherent right within
Federal law.
Throughout my service in the Congress and the Senate, I have worked
to establish a proper foundation of reconciliation between the United
States and Native Hawaiians to positively address longstanding issues
of concern resulting from the overthrow. The legislation we introduce
today to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians
and the United States proceeds from our efforts to promote
reconciliation. This endeavor enjoys overwhelming support from Native
Hawaiians and all the people of Hawaii.
In 1978, the people of Hawaii acted to preserve Native Hawaiian
culture and tradition by amending Hawaii's State constitution to
establish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and to give expression to the
right of self-determination and self-governance at the State level for
Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. Starting with statehood,
Hawaii endeavored to address and protect the rights and concerns of
Hawaii's indigenous peoples in accordance with authority delegated
under Federal policy. The constraints of this approach are evident.
This bill extends the Federal policy of self-determination and self-
governance to Native Hawaiians at the Federal level through a
government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian
governing entity.
This measure is not being introduced to circumvent the 1999 United
States Supreme Court decision in the case of Rice v. Cayeano. The Rice
case was a voting rights case whereby the Supreme Court held that the
State of Hawaii must allow all citizens of Hawaii to vote for the
trustees of a quasi-State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Nothing in this legislation would alter the eligibility of the
electorate who votes for the Board of Trustees for the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs.
This measure is critical to the people of Hawaii because it provides
the structure necessary to address many longstanding issues facing
Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. By addressing and
resolving these matters, we continue our process of healing, a process
of reconciliation not only within the United States, but within the
State of Hawaii. The time has come for us to be able to address these
deeply rooted issues in order for us to be able to move forward as one.
I cannot emphasize how important this issue is for the people of
Hawaii. At the state level, I will continue to work with the Hawaii
State Legislature which has expressed its support for this legislation.
I will also be working with Governor Linda Lingle, Hawaii's newly
elected Governor, who has expressed her support for Federal recognition
for Native Hawaiians. I look forward to continuing my discussions with
officials within the Federal Government to address issues related to
this bill, and I continue to welcome input from the people of Hawaii as
to how we should move forward as a State, and as a community, to
address longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom
of Hawaii.
We have an established record of United States' commitment to
reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step
forward to honoring that commitment. I ask all my colleagues to join me
in enacting this critical measure for the people of Hawaii.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 344
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Constitution vests Congress with the authority to
address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of
the United States.
(2) Native Hawaiians, the native people of the Hawaiian
archipelago which is now part of the United States, are
indigenous, native people of the United States.
(3) The United States has a special trust relationship to
promote the welfare of the native people of the United
States, including Native Hawaiians.
(4) Under the treaty making power of the United States,
Congress exercised its constitutional authority to confirm a
treaty between the United States and the government that
represented the Hawaiian people, and from 1826 until 1893,
the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom
of Hawaii, extended full diplomatic recognition to the
Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and
conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and
navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887.
(5) Pursuant to the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42), the United
States set aside 203,500 acres of land in the Federal
territory that later became the State of Hawaii to address
the conditions of Native Hawaiians.
(6) By setting aside 203,500 acres of land for Native
Hawaiian homesteads and farms, the Act assists the Native
Hawaiian community in maintaining distinct native settlements
throughout the State of Hawaii.
(7) Approximately 6,800 Native Hawaiian lessees and their
family members reside on Hawaiian Home Lands and
approximately 18,000 Native Hawaiians who are eligible to
reside on the Home Lands are on a waiting list to receive
assignments of land.
(8) In 1959, as part of the compact admitting Hawaii into
the United States, Congress
[[Page S2203]]
established the Ceded Lands Trust for 5 purposes, 1 of which
is the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. Such
trust consists of approximately 1,800,000 acres of land,
submerged lands, and the revenues derived from such lands,
the assets of which have never been completely inventoried or
segregated.
(9) Throughout the years, Native Hawaiians have repeatedly
sought access to the Ceded Lands Trust and its resources and
revenues in order to establish and maintain native
settlements and distinct native communities throughout the
State.
(10) The Hawaiian Home Lands and the Ceded Lands provide an
important foundation for the ability of the Native Hawaiian
community to maintain the practice of Native Hawaiian
culture, language, and traditions, and for the survival of
the Native Hawaiian people.
(11) Native Hawaiians have maintained other distinctly
native areas in Hawaii.
(12) On November 23, 1993, Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat.
1510) (commonly known as the Apology Resolution) was enacted
into law, extending an apology on behalf of the United States
to the Native people of Hawaii for the United States role in
the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
(13) The Apology Resolution acknowledges that the overthrow
of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active
participation of agents and citizens of the United States and
further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never
directly relinquished their claims to their inherent
sovereignty as a people over their national lands to the
United States, either through their monarchy or through a
plebiscite or referendum.
(14) The Apology Resolution expresses the commitment of
Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications
of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support
reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native
Hawaiians; and to have Congress and the President, through
the President's designated officials, consult with Native
Hawaiians on the reconciliation process as called for under
the Apology Resolution.
(15) Despite the overthrow of the Hawaiian Government,
Native Hawaiians have continued to maintain their separate
identity as a distinct native community through the formation
of cultural, social, and political institutions, and to give
expression to their rights as native people to self-
determination and self-governance as evidenced through their
participation in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
(16) Native Hawaiians also give expression to their rights
as native people to self-determination and self-governance
through the provision of governmental services to Native
Hawaiians, including the provision of health care services,
educational programs, employment and training programs,
children's services, conservation programs, fish and wildlife
protection, agricultural programs, native language immersion
programs and native language immersion schools from
kindergarten through high school, as well as college and
master's degree programs in native language immersion
instruction, and traditional justice programs, and by
continuing their efforts to enhance Native Hawaiian self-
determination and local control.
(17) Native Hawaiians are actively engaged in Native
Hawaiian cultural practices, traditional agricultural
methods, fishing and subsistence practices, maintenance of
cultural use areas and sacred sites, protection of burial
sites, and the exercise of their traditional rights to gather
medicinal plants and herbs, and food sources.
(18) The Native Hawaiian people wish to preserve, develop,
and transmit to future Native Hawaiian generations their
ancestral lands and Native Hawaiian political and cultural
identity in accordance with their traditions, beliefs,
customs and practices, language, and social and political
institutions, and to achieve greater self-determination over
their own affairs.
(19) This Act provides for a process within the framework
of Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise
their inherent rights as a distinct aboriginal, indigenous,
native community to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing
entity for the purpose of giving expression to their rights
as native people to self-determination and self-governance.
(20) The United States has declared that--
(A) the United States has a special responsibility for the
welfare of the native peoples of the United States, including
Native Hawaiians;
(B) Congress has identified Native Hawaiians as a distinct
indigenous group within the scope of its Indian affairs
power, and has enacted dozens of statutes on their behalf
pursuant to its recognized trust responsibility; and
(C) Congress has also delegated broad authority to
administer a portion of the Federal trust responsibility to
the State of Hawaii.
(21) The United States has recognized and reaffirmed the
special trust relationship with the Native Hawaiian people
through the enactment of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide
for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'',
approved March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4) by--
(A) ceding to the State of Hawaii title to the public lands
formerly held by the United States, and mandating that those
lands be held in public trust for 5 purposes, one of which is
for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians; and
(B) transferring the United States responsibility for the
administration of the Hawaiian Home Lands to the State of
Hawaii, but retaining the authority to enforce the trust,
including the exclusive right of the United States to consent
to any actions affecting the lands which comprise the corpus
of the trust and any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42) that are
enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii affecting
the beneficiaries under the Act.
(22) The United States continually has recognized and
reaffirmed that--
(A) Native Hawaiians have a cultural, historic, and land-
based link to the aboriginal, native people who exercised
sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands;
(B) Native Hawaiians have never relinquished their claims
to sovereignty or their sovereign lands;
(C) the United States extends services to Native Hawaiians
because of their unique status as the aboriginal, native
people of a once sovereign nation with whom the United States
has a political and legal relationship; and
(D) the special trust relationship of American Indians,
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians to the United States
arises out of their status as aboriginal, indigenous, native
people of the United States.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Aboriginal, indigenous, native people.--The term
``aboriginal, indigenous, native people'' means those people
whom Congress has recognized as the original inhabitants of
the lands and who exercised sovereignty prior to European
contact in the areas that later became part of the United
States.
(2) Apology resolution.--The term ``Apology Resolution''
means Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510), a joint resolution
extending an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the
United States for the participation of agents of the United
States in the January 17, 1893, overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii.
(3) Ceded lands.--The term ``ceded lands'' means those
lands which were ceded to the United States by the Republic
of Hawaii under the Joint Resolution to provide for annexing
the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of July 7, 1898 (30
Stat. 750), and which were later transferred to the State of
Hawaii in the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'' approved
March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4).
(4) Indigenous, native people.--The term ``indigenous,
native people'' means the lineal descendants of the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the United States.
(5) Interagency coordinating group.--The term ``Interagency
Coordinating Group'' means the Native Hawaiian Interagency
Coordinating Group established under section 5.
(6) Native hawaiian.--
(A) Prior to the recognition by the United States of the
Native Hawaiian governing entity, the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' means the indigenous, native people of Hawaii who
are the direct lineal descendants of the aboriginal,
indigenous, native people who resided in the islands that now
comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893,
and who occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian
archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the
State of Hawaii, and includes all Native Hawaiians who
were eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42)
and their lineal descendants.
(B) Following the recognition by the United States of the
Native Hawaiian governing entity, the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' shall have the meaning given to such term in the
organic governing documents of the Native Hawaiian governing
entity.
(7) Native hawaiian governing entity.--The term ``Native
Hawaiian governing entity'' means the governing entity
organized by the Native Hawaiian people.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY AND PURPOSE.
(a) Policy.--The United States reaffirms that--
(1) Native Hawaiians are a unique and distinct, indigenous,
native people, with whom the United States has a political
and legal relationship;
(2) the United States has a special trust relationship to
promote the welfare of Native Hawaiians;
(3) Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution
to enact legislation to address the conditions of Native
Hawaiians and has exercised this authority through the
enactment of--
(A) the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108,
chapter 42);
(B) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission
of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved March 18,
1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4); and
(C) more than 150 other Federal laws addressing the
conditions of Native Hawaiians;
(4) Native Hawaiians have--
(A) an inherent right to autonomy in their internal
affairs;
(B) an inherent right of self-determination and self-
governance; and
(C) the right to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing
entity; and
(5) the United States shall continue to engage in a process
of reconciliation and political relations with the Native
Hawaiian people.
[[Page S2204]]
(b) Purpose.--It is the intent of Congress that the purpose
of this Act is to provide a process for the recognition by
the United States of a Native Hawaiian governing entity for
purposes of continuing a government-to-government
relationship.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR NATIVE
HAWAIIAN RELATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is established within the Office of
the Secretary the United States Office for Native Hawaiian
Relations.
(b) Duties of the Office.--The United States Office for
Native Hawaiian Relations shall--
(1) effectuate and coordinate the trust relationship
between the Native Hawaiian people and the United States, and
upon the recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
by the United States, between the Native Hawaiian governing
entity and the United States through the Secretary, and with
all other Federal agencies;
(2) continue the process of reconciliation with the Native
Hawaiian people, and upon the recognition of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity by the United States, continue the
process of reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian governing
entity;
(3) fully integrate the principle and practice of
meaningful, regular, and appropriate consultation with the
Native Hawaiian governing entity by providing timely notice
to, and consulting with the Native Hawaiian people and the
Native Hawaiian governing entity prior to taking any actions
that may have the potential to significantly affect Native
Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
(4) consult with the Interagency Coordinating Group, other
Federal agencies, and with relevant agencies of the State of
Hawaii on policies, practices, and proposed actions affecting
Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands; and
(5) prepare and submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives an annual report detailing the activities of
the Interagency Coordinating Group that are undertaken with
respect to the continuing process of reconciliation and to
effect meaningful consultation with the Native Hawaiian
governing entity and providing recommendations for any
necessary changes to existing Federal statutes or
regulations promulgated under the authority of Federal
law.
SEC. 5. NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERAGENCY COORDINATING GROUP.
(a) Establishment.--In recognition of the fact that Federal
programs authorized to address the conditions of Native
Hawaiians are largely administered by Federal agencies other
than the Department of the Interior, there is established an
interagency coordinating group to be known as the ``Native
Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group''.
(b) Composition.--The Interagency Coordinating Group shall
be composed of officials, to be designated by the President,
from--
(1) each Federal agency that administers Native Hawaiian
programs, establishes or implements policies that affect
Native Hawaiians, or whose actions may significantly or
uniquely impact on Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or
lands; and
(2) the United States Office for Native Hawaiian Relations
established under section 4.
(c) Lead Agency.--The Department of the Interior shall
serve as the lead agency of the Interagency Coordinating
Group, and meetings of the Interagency Coordinating Group
shall be convened by the lead agency.
(d) Duties.--The responsibilities of the Interagency
Coordinating Group shall be--
(1) the coordination of Federal programs and policies that
affect Native Hawaiians or actions by any agency or agencies
of the Federal Government which may significantly or uniquely
impact on Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
(2) to assure that each Federal agency develops a policy on
consultation with the Native Hawaiian people, and upon
recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the
United States, consultation with the Native Hawaiian
governing entity; and
(3) to assure the participation of each Federal agency in
the development of the report to Congress authorized in
section 4(b)(5).
SEC. 6. PROCESS FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN
GOVERNING ENTITY.
(a) Recognition of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.--
The right of the Native Hawaiian people to organize for their
common welfare and to adopt appropriate organic governing
documents is hereby recognized by the United States.
(b) Process for Recognition.--
(1) Submittal of organic governing documents.--Following
the organization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the
adoption of organic governing documents, and the election of
officers of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the duly
elected officers of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
shall submit the organic governing documents of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity to the Secretary.
(2) Certifications.--
(A) In general.--Within 90 days of the date that the duly
elected officers of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
submit the organic governing documents to the Secretary, the
Secretary shall certify that the organic governing
documents--
(i) establish the criteria for citizenship in the Native
Hawaiian governing entity;
(ii) were adopted by a majority vote of the citizens of the
Native Hawaiian governing entity;
(iii) provide for the exercise of governmental authorities
by the Native Hawaiian governing entity;
(iv) provide for the Native Hawaiian governing entity to
negotiate with Federal, State, and local governments, and
other entities;
(v) prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of
lands, interests in lands, or other assets of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity without the consent of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity;
(vi) provide for the protection of the civil rights of the
citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and all
persons subject to the authority of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity, and ensure that the Native Hawaiian
governing entity exercises its authority consistent with the
requirements of section 202 of the Act of April 11, 1968 (25
U.S.C. 1302); and
(vii) are consistent with applicable Federal law and the
special trust relationship between the United States and the
indigenous native people of the United States.
(B) By the secretary.--Within 90 days of the date that the
duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
submit the organic governing documents to the Secretary, the
Secretary shall certify that the State of Hawaii supports the
recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity by the
United States as evidenced by a resolution or act of the
Hawaii State legislature.
(C) Resubmission in case of noncompliance with federal
law.--
(i) Resubmission by the secretary.--If the Secretary
determines that the organic governing documents, or any part
thereof, are not consistent with applicable Federal law, the
Secretary shall resubmit the organic governing documents to
the duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian governing
entity along with a justification for each of the Secretary's
findings as to why the provisions are not consistent with
such law.
(ii) Amendment and resubmission by the native hawaiian
governing entity.--If the organic governing documents are
resubmitted to the duly elected officers of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity by the Secretary under clause (i),
the duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian governing
entity shall--
(I) amend the organic governing documents to ensure that
the documents comply with applicable Federal law; and
(II) resubmit the amended organic governing documents to
the Secretary for certification in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph.
(D) Certifications deemed made.--The certifications
authorized in subparagraph (B) shall be deemed to have been
made if the Secretary has not acted within 90 days of the
date that the duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity have submitted the organic governing
documents of the Native Hawaiian governing entity to the
Secretary.
(3) Federal recognition.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, upon the election of the officers of the
Native Hawaiian governing entity and the certifications by
the Secretary required under paragraph (1), the United States
hereby extends Federal recognition to the Native Hawaiian
governing entity as the representative governing body of the
Native Hawaiian people.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the activities authorized in this Act.
SEC. 8. REAFFIRMATION OF DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY;
NEGOTIATIONS.
(a) Reaffirmation.--The delegation by the United States of
authority to the State of Hawaii to address the conditions of
the indigenous, native people of Hawaii contained in the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission of the State
of Hawaii into the Union'' approved March 18, 1959 (Public
Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 5) is hereby reaffirmed.
(b) Negotiations.--Upon the Federal recognition of the
Native Hawaiian governing entity by the United States, the
United States is authorized to negotiate and enter into an
agreement with the State of Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian
governing entity regarding the transfer of lands, resources,
and assets dedicated to Native Hawaiian use to the Native
Hawaiian governing entity. Nothing in this Act is intended to
serve as a settlement of any claims against the United
States.
SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWS.
(a) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.--Nothing contained in
this Act shall be construed as an authorization for the
Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gaming activities
under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(b) Bureau of Indian Affairs.--Nothing contained in this
Act shall be construed as an authorization for eligibility to
participate in any programs and services provided by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs for any persons not otherwise
eligible for such programs or services.
SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.
In the event that any section or provision of this Act is
held invalid, it is the intent of Congress that the remaining
sections or provisions of this Act shall continue in full
force and effect.
[[Page S2205]]
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Graham of
Florida, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 345. A bill to amend the title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
prohibit physicians and other health care practitioners from charging
membership or other incidental fee (or requiring purchase of other
items or services) as a prerequisite for the provision of an item or
service to a medicare beneficiary; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Equal Access to Medicare Act to combat the growing practice of
``concierge care'' medical practices. As my colleagues may recall I
introduced similar legislation last Congress to deal with the growing
problem of doctors shutting down their practices and opening new ones,
only accepting those patients willing to pay a membership fee. These
fees range from $1,500 to $20,000 annually. By charging these dues, or
requiring patients to purchase non-Medicare covered services, doctors
have been able to shrink their patient load and maintain high profit
margins while continuing to bill Medicare, all on the backs of low- and
middle-income beneficiaries.
This is a dangerous model that causes significant disparities in the
care available to Medicare beneficiaries. A doctor receiving Medicare
reimbursement should not be allowed to turn away those Medicare
beneficiaries who cannot, or choose not to pay a membership fee. My
bill simply prevents Medicare from reimbursing doctors who charge
membership fees or require the purchase of non-Medicare covered
services as a condition for the provision of care.
Since the introduction of this bill in 2001, the practice has been
rapidly expanding with versions in many states. As an increasing number
of Medicare beneficiaries voice their concerns, it is time for Congress
to act. I hope that as we debate Medicare modernization this year,
Congress will agree to put an end to this egregious practice.
In addition to the concerns of seniors, health care advocacy groups
have begun to weigh in as well. Both the American Academy of Family
Physicians and the American Medical Association have expressed concern
about the ``. . . risks associated with the spread of this model'',
AMA, June 2002 report. Should this practice proliferate, a doctor
shortage for low- and middle-income Medicare beneficiaries is likely,
exacerbating an already ailing health care marketplace.
I must emphasize: this bill does not interfere with a doctor's
ability to set up a practice with a limited number of patients while
remaining adequately compensated. Nor would doctors who participate in
Medicare be prevented from contracting privately with patients for non-
Medicare covered services. It simply provides that doctors who
participate in the Medicare program may not select patients based upon
willingness or ability to pay a fee for other services. This is the
same standard that private insurance companies apply to their
providers.
I hope my colleagues will join me in helping Medicare keep its
promise of accessibility to seniors who have paid a lifetime of
``premiums.''
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 345
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 ``Equal Access to Medicare Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF INCIDENTAL FEES AND REQUIRED PURCHASE
OF NONCOVERED ITEMS OR SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.
(a) In General.--Section 1842 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395u) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(u) Prohibition of Incidental Fees or Requiring Purchase
of Noncovered Items or Services.--
``(1) In general.--A physician, practitioner (as described
in section 1842(b)(18)(C)), or other individual may not--
``(A) charge a membership fee or any other incidental fee
to a medicare beneficiary (as defined in section
1802(b)(5)(A)); or
``(B) require a medicare beneficiary (as so defined) to
purchase a noncovered item or service,
as a prerequisite for the provision of a covered item or
service to the beneficiary under this title.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to apply the prohibition under paragraph (1) to a
physician, practitioner, or other individual described in
such subsection who does not accept any funds under this
title.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to membership fees and other charges made, or
purchases of items and services required, on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
S. 346. A bill to amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
to establish a governmentwide policy requiring competition in certain
executive agency procurements; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Craig
Thomas in introducing the Federal Prison Industries Competition in
Contracting Act. Our bill is based on a straightforward premise: it is
unfair for Federal Prison Industries to deny businesses in the private
sector an opportunity to compete for sales to their own government.
I repeat: the bill that we are introducing today, it enacted, would
do nothing more than permit private sector companies to compete for
Federal contracts that are paid for with their dollars. It may seem
incredible that they are denied this opportunity today, but that is the
law, because if Federal Prison Industries says that it wants a
contract, it gets that contract, regardless whether a company in the
private sector may offer to provide the product better, cheaper, or
faster.
We have made considerable progress on this issue since Senator Thomas
and I introduced a similar bill in the 107th congress. Two years ago,
the Senate voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly on
Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted
into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision in last
year's defense bill.
Despite this progress, much work remains to be done. As of today,
Federal Prison Industries retains its monopoly on the contracts of
every agency of the Federal Government, other than the Department of
Defense. This means that all other Federal agencies, including the new
Department of Homeland Security, may be required to purchase products
from Federal Prison Industries. It also means that private sector
companies may find it impossible to sell their products to their own
government, even when their products outperform FPI products in terms
of price, quality and time of delivery.
The bill that we are introducing today would not limit the ability of
Federal Prison Industries to sell its products to Federal agencies. It
would simply say that these sales should be made on a competitive,
rather than a sole-source basis.
FPI starts with a significant advantage in any competition with the
private sector, since FPI pays inmates less than two dollars an hour,
far below the minimum wage and a small fraction of the wage paid to
most private sector workers in competing industries. And of course, the
taxpayers provide a direct subsidy to Federal Prison Industries
products by picking up the cost of feeding, clothing, and housing the
inmates who provide the labor. Given those advantages, there is no
reason why we should still require Federal agencies to purchase
products from FPI even when they are more expensive or of a lower
quality than competing commercial items. I can think of no reason why
private industry should be prohibited from competing for these federal
agency contracts.
We have made several changes to this bill since it was introduced in
the 107th Congress. The new bill has been harmonized with the
provisions that we have already enacted for the Department of Defense,
to ensure that we will have a single, government-wide procurement
policy for agencies purchasing products available from Federal Prison
industries. This government-wide policy would be codified in the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy Act, which is the primary procurement
statute that applies to both defense and non-defense agencies. I
believe that these changes will strengthen the bill and reinforce its
underlying intent.
[[Page S2206]]
Federal Prison Industries has repeatedly claimed that it provides a
quality product at a price that is competitive with current market
prices. Indeed, the Federal Prison Industries statute requires them to
do so. That statute states that FPI may provide to Federal agencies
products that ``meet their requirements'' at prices that do not
``exceed current market prices''.
Yet, FPI remains unwilling to compete with private sector businesses
and their employees, or even to permit federal agencies to compare
their products and prices with those available in the private sector.
Indeed, FPI has tried to prohibit Federal agencies from conducting
market research, as they would ordinarily do, to determine whether the
price and quality or FPI products is comparable to what is available in
the commercial marketplace. Instead, Federal agencies are directed to
contact FPI, which acts as the sole arbiter of whether the product
meets the agency's requirements.
The result is totally and understandably frustrating to private
sector businesses and their employees who are denied an opportunity to
compete for Federal business, as well as to the Federal agencies who
are forced to buy FPI products. The frustration of these businesses
comes through in a series of letters that were placed in the record of
a House Small Business Committee hearing in the last Congress. One
letter stated with regard to UNICOR--the trade name used by Federal
Prison Industries:
Dear Mr. Chairman: My name is Billy Carroll; I am an
outside sales representatives with C&C Office Supply Co. in
Biloxi Mississippi. Our company has been in business for over
20 years and we employ 20 people.
During the course of our 20-year history we have done
considerable business with numerous governmental agencies and
military installations. Some of them being Naval Construction
Battalion in Gulfport, Mississippi; Air National Guard in
Gulfport; Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi; Naval Station in
Pascagoula; and NASA in Stennis Space Center.
As a result of FPI's unfair monopolistic practices, we have
seen sales from these governmental agencies go from
$100,000.00 a month to less than $5,000 a month.
There are numerous horror stories we hear from our
customers who deal with UNICOR. The most recent one being
that a customer had to wait 5 months to get their furniture.
When the furniture finally arrived, it wasn't even what they
had ordered. This is something that would have been averted
had they been able to use our company or another dealer.
I could go on about how we could have sold the product much
cheaper, which would have saved taxpayers money, faster
delivery, which would have increased productivity, and
finally better service, but I won't. You get the picture.
Sincerely,
Billy Carroll,
C&C Office Supply Company, Biloxi, MS.
Mr. LEVIN. Other vendors expressed even greater frustration about
FPI's unfair business practices:
Dear Mr. Chairman: During the past 5 years I have had
representatives from UNICOR tell my customers that they had
to turn over my proprietary designs to UNICOR, without
payment to the dealership. They have told my customers that
if they do not buy UNICOR, they will be `reported to
congress' and that there is no place else to go for
government furniture. They frighten young department of
defense officials with words like `illegal' when they ask
about waivers.
The UNICOR reps routinely refuse waivers on the first
approach. The answer is a standard `UNICOR has products which
will meet your needs.' No explanation. They refuse to answer
waiver requests in a timely fashion. I have had a $110,000
order for the Arizona Air National Guard in Tucson literally
taken away by UNICOR. The representative demanded the designs
and said that UNICOR would fill the request. There would be
no waiver and no discussion. And she was right. Despite the
fact that all of the programming phase had been completed by
my designers, at no cost to the federal government, this rep
insisted that she knew what was best for this customer. Of
course, the products arrived late, in poor condition, was
much more expensive than the budgeted GSA furniture--and the
reps have not been heard from. The answer is `a 10% discount'
or a `free chair.'
In Texas, my representative worked for 4 months with a
customer, completing designs and meeting all relevant
criteria. She proposed only products on GSA contract. UNICOR
unilaterally refused to waive the chairs, approximately
$50,000 worth, because their factories were not at capacity.
The fact that the UNICOR chairs do not meet the price point,
that UNICOR spent no time with the customers determining
function, color or other requirements has no meaning. The
seating portion of the order is lost. The remaining portion
would have been lost, as well, if the customer had not spent
approximately 30 days going from one appeal process to the
other attempting to get waivers. Very few customers will take
the time to do this. Of course, when the project finally
arrives, it will be late and missions will be compromised.
Sincerely,
Ruthanne S. Pitts,
Simmons Contract Furnishings,
Tucson, Arizona.
____
Dear Mr. Chairman: I personally worked with the staff who
had just moved into a new ward at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center. We had two meetings during which I took measurements
and went over in great detail the furniture items they needed
for the report room, reception area, patient education room,
two offices and some miscellaneous shelving. The total I
quoted to Walter Reed was approximately $13,000 and met their
needs exactly. This was in April of 2000. Our delivery would
have been completed within a month.
Because Walter Reed couldn't get a UNICOR waiver (just to
determine this fact takes at least 6 weeks) the order was
placed with UNICOR and took eight months to be delivered (it
just showed up last week) and much of it was not what
officials at Walter Reed even ordered. FPI tells their
customers what the customer can have rather than meeting the
needs of the customer. As an example, we had designed a
workstation for the report room to accommodate four
computers. UNICOR sent an expensive, massive cherry
workstation for an executive office that had to be put in
someone's office (who didn't need new furniture) because it
was unusable where it was supposed to go. UNICOR charged an
additional $1,500.00 to assemble this (and didn't have proper
tools to finish the assembly). Our price for the proper item
including all set up was less than they charged for set-up
alone.
You know, it's not just the impact FPI has on our
businesses, it's the waste of everybody's tax dollars when
furniture costs more and doesn't even do the job.
Sincerely,
Diane Lake,
Economy Office Products, Inc. Fairfax, VA.
____
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am concerned in the way taxpayers'
money is being wasted. A few years ago I had proposed over
$100,000.00 in chairs to the VA Medical Center. They were
excited about the chair I was proposing on contract. The
chair was less expensive than the chair proposed by FPI. The
customer also recognized that the chair I was proposing was
better in quality and had more ergonomic features, which
would assist in some of their health issues. Another comment
made by the VA was the problem with the FPI chairs breaking
easily. Parts were near impossible to get, so they would
throw the FPI chair in the garbage.
In this situation FPI denied the VA waiver. Regretfully
they had to buy FPI chairs. I can not believe this happens in
America.
Sincerely,
Rick Buchholz,
Christianson's Business Furniture.
Mr. LEVIN. These letters are far from unique. In case after case,
Federal Prison Industries insists on taking contracts away from private
businesses, even where FPI's products are inferior, their prices are
higher, and they are not prepared to deliver in a timely manner. This
is wrong.
Avoiding competition is the easy way out, but it isn't the right way
for FPI, it isn't the right way for the private sector workers whose
jobs FPI is taking, and it isn't the right way for Federal agencies,
which too often get stuck with the bill for inferior products that
can't compete with private sector goods. Competition will be better for
Federal agencies, better for the taxpayer, and better for working men
and women around the country.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin
in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit government
competition with the private sector. Senator Levin and I propose to
eliminate the mandatory contracting requirement that Federal agencies
are subject to when it comes to products made by the Federal Prison
Industries, FPI. Under law, all Federal agencies, except the Department
of Defense, are required to purchase products made by the FPI. Simply
put, this bill will require the FPI to compete with the private sector
for Federal contracts.
Currently, the FPI employs approximately 22,000 Federal prisoners or
roughly 20 percent of all Federal prisoners. These prisoners are
responsible for producing a diverse range of products for the FPI,
ranging from office furniture to clothing. The remaining 80 percent of
Federal prisoners, who work, do so in and around Federal prisons.
While Senator Levin and I believe that it is important to keep
prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly
harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to
minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with
the FPI.
[[Page S2207]]
The FPI's mandatory source requirement not only undercuts private
business throughout America, but its mandatory source preference
oftentimes costs American taxpayers more money. I believe American
taxpayers would be alarmed to learn of the preferential treatment that
the FPI enjoys when it comes to Federal contracts.
As I said before, Senator Levin and I support the goal of keeping
prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. However, if we allow
competition in Federal contracts, the FPI will be required to focus its
efforts in product areas that don't unfairly compete with the private
sector. Clearly, competitive bidding is a reasonable process that will
ensure taxpayer's dollars are being spent justly.
Of particular note, our bill allows contracting officers, within each
Federal agency, the ability to use competitive procedures for the
procurement of products. This approach allows Federal agencies to
select the FPI contracts if he/she believes that the FPI can meet that
particularly agency's requirements and the product is offered at a fair
and reasonable price. The above outlined provision in our bill seeks to
place the control of government procurement in the hands of contracting
officers, rather than in the hands of the FPI.
In addition to establishing a competitive procedure for the
procurement of products, we include a provision that allows the
Attorney General to grant a waiver to this process if a particular
contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration
of a particular prison.
I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts
our bill will save tax dollars. As Congress looks for additional cost
saving practices, the elimination of the FPI's mandatory source
preference will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost
savings, but also in streamlining of the FPI's products.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 347. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a joint special resources study to
evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the
Valley Corridor as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill
today to direct the Interior Secretary to conduct a study to evaluate
the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National
Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.
The Rim of the Valley Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La
Crescenta, Simi, Santa Clarita, Conejo Valleys, consisting of parts of
the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel
Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and connects to the
adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests.
This parcel of land is unique because of its rare Mediterranean
ecosystem and wildlife corridor that stretches north from the Santa
Monicas. With the population growth forecasted to multiply
exponentially over the next several decades, the need for parks to
balance out the expected population growth has become critical in
California.
Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978,
Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together
to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area, the world's largest urban park, hemmed in on
all sides by development.
Park and recreational lands provide people with a vital refuge from
urban life while preserving valuable habitat and wildlife. With the
passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original
commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the
Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area. With the inclusion of the Rim
of the Valley Corridor in Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area,
greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly
for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle.
After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of
the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine
whether the Rim of the Valley warrants national park status.
This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I
hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress,
as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce
companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his
commitment to this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Smith, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 348. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
higher education more affordable, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 348
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 ``Make College Affordable Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES.
(a) Amount of Deduction.--Subsection (b) of section 222 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for
qualified tuition and related expenses) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitations.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amount allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) with
respect to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed
the applicable dollar limit.
``(B) Applicable dollar limit.--The applicable dollar limit
for any taxable year shall be determined as follows:
Applicable
``Taxable year: dollar amount:
2003......................................................$8,000 ....
2004 and thereafter......................................$12,000.....
``(2) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
``(A) In general.--The amount which would (but for this
paragraph) be taken into account under subsection (a) shall
be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount determined
under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Amount of reduction.--The amount determined under
this subparagraph equals the amount which bears the same
ratio to the amount which would be so taken into account as--
``(i) the excess of--
``(I) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for
such taxable year, over
``(II) $65,000 ($130,000 in the case of a joint return),
bears to
``(ii) $15,000 ($30,000 in the case of a joint return).
``(C) Modified adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means
the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable
year determined--
``(i) without regard to this section and sections 911, 931,
and 933, and
``(ii) after the application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219,
221, and 469.
For purposes of the sections referred to in clause (ii),
adjusted gross income shall be determined without regard to
the deduction allowed under this section.
``(D) Inflation adjustments.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 2003, both of the dollar
amounts in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) shall be increased by an
amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2002' for
`calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under clause
(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to
the nearest multiple of $50.''.
(b) Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses of Eligible
Students.--
(1) In general.--Section 222(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of deduction) is amended
by inserting ``of eligible students'' after ``expenses''.
(2) Definition of eligible student.--Section 222(d) of such
Code (relating to definitions and special rules) is amended
by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as paragraphs (3)
through (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) Eligible student.--The term `eligible student' has
the meaning given such term by section 25A(b)(3).''.
(c) Deduction Made Permanent.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of
[[Page S2208]]
provisions of such Act) shall not apply to the amendments
made by section 431 of such Act.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2002.
SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25B the following new section:
``SEC. 25C. INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
interest paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year on any
qualified education loan.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
credit allowed by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall
not exceed $1,500.
``(2) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
``(A) In general.--If the modified adjusted gross income of
the taxpayer for the taxable year exceeds $50,000 ($100,000
in the case of a joint return), the amount which would (but
for this paragraph) be allowable as a credit under this
section shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount
which bears the same ratio to the amount which would be so
allowable as such excess bears to $20,000 ($40,000 in the
case of a joint return).
``(B) Modified adjusted gross income.--The term `modified
adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income determined
without regard to sections 911, 931, and 933.
``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable
year beginning after 2003, the $50,000 and $100,000 amounts
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an
amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `2002' for `1992'.
``(D) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under
subparagraph (C) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall
be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.
``(c) Dependents Not Eligible for Credit.--No credit shall
be allowed by this section to an individual for the taxable
year if a deduction under section 151 with respect to such
individual is allowed to another taxpayer for the taxable
year beginning in the calendar year in which such
individual's taxable year begins.
``(d) Limit on Period Credit Allowed.--A credit shall be
allowed under this section only with respect to interest paid
on any qualified education loan during the first 60 months
(whether or not consecutive) in which interest payments are
required. For purposes of this paragraph, any loan and all
refinancings of such loan shall be treated as 1 loan.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified
education loan' has the meaning given such term by section
221(e)(1).
``(2) Dependent.--The term `dependent' has the meaning
given such term by section 152.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No credit shall be allowed
under this section for any amount taken into account for any
deduction under any other provision of this chapter.
``(2) Married couples must file joint return.--If the
taxpayer is married at the close of the taxable year, the
credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) only if the
taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for
the taxable year.
``(3) Marital status.--Marital status shall be determined
in accordance with section 7703.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 25B the following new item:
``Sec. 25C. Interest on higher education loans.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any qualified education loan (as defined in
section 25C(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by this section) incurred on, before, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act, but only with respect to any
loan interest payment due after December 31, 2002.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my
colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, to talk about a bill that
will help American families afford their children's college tuition.
The bill we are reintroducing today, the Make College Affordable Act,
will make up to $12,000 in college tuition tax deductible each year,
while providing graduates with a tax credit to reduce the cost of their
student loans.
With the average college graduate earning 80 percent more than the
average non-college, high school graduate, it is abundantly clear that
in today's economy a college degree is an absolute necessity. When I
went to college, it cost about $1,000 a year. That meant, for a family
making about $12,000 a year, the cost of college was about 6 or 7
percent of that family's income. Today the average cost of room, board
and tuition at a four-year public college has jumped to over $9,000 a
year. The average cost of room, board and tuition at a private four-
year college has jumped to over $25,000. What does this mean? This
means that hard working American families are spending a larger
percentage of their income than ever before to send their children to
school. To attend my alma mater, the University of Delaware, it costs
nearly 20 percent of a Delaware family's average annual income to cover
costs. If that same family wants to send their child to a private
university, approximately 50 percent of their income is required. This
means that the average American family is likely to spend just as much,
if not more, on their child's tuition as they are to pay in annual
mortgage payments.
I have said it before. How can we expect families to dream of a
better and brighter future for their children, when the cost of
attending even some public universities rivals their home mortgage
payments? We can't.
That is why in 1995, I first offered an amendment to permit a $10,000
tuition tax deduction. That is why in 1996 and 1997, I introduced my
GET AHEAD bill which would have provided students and their families
with scholarships, tax deductions, and college savings plans. We've
made some good progress. A number of initiatives were incorporated into
the 1997 tax bill. Today families have available to them the Hope
Scholarship--a tax credit of up to $1,500 for the first two years of
college, and the Lifetime Learning Credit--which permits a 20 percent
tax credit on up to $10,000 worth of higher education expenses.
Students can also claim a tax deduction for interest on student loans,
have the opportunity to consolidate their student loans at low interest
rates and beginning in 2001, have had the chance to deduct up to $3,000
in tuition expenses from their Federal income tax.
And yet, we can and should do more to help qualified students attend
the college of their dreams. This is why I introduced my Tuition
Assistance for Families Act in January. This bill would expand current
tuition tax credits, provide merit scholarships to graduating seniors,
increase the maximum Pell Grant and raise the tuition tax deduction
much like the bill before us today.
I join my friend from New York today to introduce the Make College
Affordable Act because it will allow most taxpayers to take up to a
$12,000 tax deduction each year for college tuition and fees. For some
families this would amount to a tax savings of more than $3,000 each
year--$3,000 that can go toward their children's doctor visits,
retirement savings, child care costs and yes, toward their annual
mortgage payment.
In addition to the tax deduction, the Schumer-Biden bill will provide
a tax credit of up to $1,500 for the interest paid on student loans
over the first five years of repayment. This credit will be available
to individuals with incomes of up to $50,000, and families with incomes
up to $100,000. When one considers that the average graduate is $16,928
in debt, you can imagine how quickly interest payments add up each
year.
We are hearing a great deal these days about tax cuts. How we choose
to provide them, and who we choose to provide them to, is a reflection
of our nation's priorities and values. What greater priority could
there be than providing our children with a first class education.
Let's be smart about our investments when considering the tax proposals
that come before us. Let's help families provide their children with a
better life through the promise of a college education. And let's not
forget that the Make College Affordable Act will not only ensure a
brighter future for all our children, it will help to guarantee an
educated and prosperous America down the road.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Allen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dayton, and Mr.
Bunning):
[[Page S2209]]
S. 349. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal
the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague,
Senator Collins, to introduce legislation to repeal two provisions of
current law that reduce earned Social Security benefits for teachers
and other government pensioners--the Windfall Elimination, WEP,
provision, and the Government Pension Offset, GPO, provision.
Under current law, public employees, whose salaries are often lower
than those in the private sector to begin with, find that they are
penalized and held to a different standard when it comes to retirement
benefits. The unfair reduction in their benefits makes it more
difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.
The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and also
receive a government pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.
Private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to
90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, plus
32 percent of monthly earnings up to $3,381 and 15 percent of earnings
above $3,381. Government pensioners, however, are only allowed to
receive 40 percent of the first $561 in career monthly earnings, a
penalty of $280.50 per month.
To my mind it is simply unfair, especially at a time when we need to
be doing all we can to attract qualified people to government service,
and my legislation will allow government pensioners the chance to earn
the same 90 percent to which non-government pension recipients are
entitled.
The current Government Pension Offset provision reduces Social
Security spousal benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the
spouse's public employment civil service pension. This can have the
effect of taking away, entirely, a spouse's benefits from Social
Security.
It is beyond my understanding why we would want to discourage people
from pursuing careers in public service by essentially saying that if
you do enter public service, your family will suffer by not being able
to receive the full retirement benefits they would otherwise be
entitled to.
Record enrollments in public schools and the projected retirements of
thousands of veteran teachers are driving an urgent need for teacher
recruitment. Critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate
hiring additional teachers. It is estimated that schools will need to
hire between 2.2 and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009.
California has 284,030 teachers currently, but will need to hire an
additional 300,000 teachers by 2010 to keep up with California's rate
of student enrollment, which is three times the national average. All
in all, California has to hire 26,000 new teachers every year.
To combat the growing teacher shortage crisis, forty-five States and
the District of Columbia now offer ``alternate routes'' for
certification to teach in the Nation's public schools. It is a sad
irony that policymakers are encouraging experienced people to change
careers and enter the teaching profession at the same time that
individuals who have worked in other careers are less likely to want to
become teachers if doing so will affect Social Security benefits they
worked so hard to earn.
Almost 300,000 government retirees nationwide are affected by the GPO
and the WEP, but their impact is greatest in the 13 states that chose
to keep their own public employee retirement systems, including
California. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO
reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a
year. The WEP causes already low-paid public employees outside the
Social Security system, like teachers, firefighters and police
officers, to lose up to sixty percent of the Social Security benefits
to which they are entitled. Ironically, the loss of Social Security
benefits may make these individuals eligible for more costly
assistance, such as food stamps.
The reforms that led to the GPO and the WEP are almost 20 years old.
At the time they were enacted, I'm sure they seemed like a good idea.
Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of those reforms, I
hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair
reduction of benefits that make it even more difficult to recruit and
retain public employees.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague
from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security
Fairness Act, which repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall
elimination provision, WEP, and the government pension offset, GPO--
that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public
employees. This legislation is of tremendous importance to Maine's
teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees who
currently are unfairly penalized for working in the private sector when
the time comes for them to retire.
Despite their challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs,
these invaluable public servants often receive far lower salaries than
private sector employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize
them and hold them to a different standard when it comes to their
Social Security retirement benefits.
Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to
attract qualified people to public service, this unfair reduction in
Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our
communities to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers,
firefighters, and other public employees who are so critical to the
safety and well-being of our families.
The government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions
affect government employees and retirees in virtually every State, but
their effect is most acute in Maine and 14 other States where most
public employees are not covered by Social Security. Nationwide, more
than one-third of teachers and school employees, and more than one-
fifth of other public employees, are not covered by Social Security.
Approximately 250,000 retired Federal, State and local government
employees across the country have already been adversely affected by
these provisions. Thousands more stand to be affected in the future.
The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social
Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who
also receive a government pension from work not covered under Social
Security, such as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While
private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to
90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings,
government pensioners are only allowed to receive 40 percent--a harsh
and unjust penalty of $280.50 per month.
The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor
benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her
public pension. Estimates indicate that 9 out of 10 public employees
affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though
their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.
This offset is, unfortunately, most harsh for those who can least
afford the loss: lower-income women. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by
more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between
a comfortable retirement and poverty.
This simply is not fair and not right. Our teachers and other public
employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work.
Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not
have the added burden of worrying about their retirement, and these two
onerous provisions should be repealed.
This is an issue that I have heard about at the grocery store, at my
church, and even at my 30th high school class reunion from my many
friends who have entered the teaching profession and who are committed
to living and working in Maine. They love their jobs and the children
they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial
security in retirement.
I also hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail. Patricia
Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for
15 years under
[[Page S2210]]
Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income
of less than $13,000 after 45 years of teaching. Since she also lost
survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates
that a repeal of the WEP and GPO would double her current retirement
income.
Wendy Lessard, an English teacher at Mt. Desert Island High School,
is an example of another unfortunate consequence of the laws. After 10
years of teaching, she is now considering whether or not to continue
her career because of the Social Security penalties associated with her
teacher's pension. She tells me that she has worked vacations in her
summers and off-hours to be able to make a better wage and pay back her
student loans. She is just the kind of teacher we want teaching our
students, but is now contemplating leaving the profession because of
her concerns about financial security in retirement.
Moreover, these provisions also penalize private sector employees who
leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a
teacher from Otisfield, ME, wrote:
I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in
response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the
current pool of educators near retirement in the next few
years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard
hours are not great selling points to young students when
selecting a career.
I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found
out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former
life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in
Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each
year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that
because of my many years of maximum Social Security
contributions, I would still have a livable retirement
``wage.'' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an
educator in your State.
Maine, like many States, is currently facing a serious shortage of
teachers, and we simply cannot afford to discourage people from
pursuing important careers in public service in this way. I am
therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this
legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my
colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Corzine):
S. 352. A bill to ensure that commercial insurers cannot engage in
price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of
competition and consumers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
``Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2003'' along with
Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Edwards, Rockefeller, Reid, Boxer, Feingold,
and Corzine. In the deafening debate about medical malpractice, I
believe this legislation is a clear and calm statement about fixing one
significant part of the system that is broken--skyrocketing insurance
premiums for medical malpractice.
Our health care system is in crisis. We have heard that statement so
often that it has begun to lose the force of its truth, but that truth
is one we must confront and the crisis is one we must abate.
Unfortunately, dramatically rising medical malpractice insurance
rates are forcing some doctors to abandon their practices or to cross
State lines to find more affordable situations. Patients who need care
in high-risk specialties--like obstetrics--and patients in areas
already under-served by health care providers--like many rural
communities--are too often left without adequate care.
We are the richest and most powerful Nation on earth. We should be
able to ensure access to quality health care to all our citizens and to
assure the medical profession that its members will not be driven from
their calling by the manipulations of the malpractice insurance
industry.
The debate about the causes of this latest insurance crisis and the
possible cures grows shrill. I hope today's hearing will be a calmer
and more constructive discussion. My principal concerns are
straightforward: That we ensure that our Nation's physicians are able
to provide the high quality of medical care that our citizens deserve
and for which the United States is world-renowned, and that in those
instances where a doctor does harm a patient, that patient should be
able to seek appropriate redress through our court system.
To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical
malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated
industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to
rising medical malpractice insurance rates because each State has its
own unique problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while
experiencing problems, do not face as great a crisis as others.
Vermont's legislature is at work to find the right answers for our
State, and the same process is underway now in other States. To
contrast, in States such as West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, and
New Jersey, doctors are walking out of work in protest over the
exorbitant rates being extracted from them by their insurance carriers.
Thoughtful solutions to the situation will require creative thinking,
a genuine effort to rectify the problem, and bipartisan consensus to
achieve real reform. Unfortunately, these are not the characteristics
of the Administration's proposal. Ignoring the central truth of this
crisis--that it is a problem in the insurance industry, not the tort
system--the Administration has proposed a plan that would cap non-
economic damages at $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. The notion
that such a one-size-fits-all scheme is the answer runs counter to the
factual experience of the States.
Most importantly, the President's proposal does nothing to protect
true victims of medical malpractice. A cap of $250,000 would
arbitrarily limit compensation that the most seriously injured patients
are able to receive. The medical malpractice reform debate too often
ignores the men, women and children whose lives have been
dramatically--and often permanently--altered by medical errors.
The President's proposal would prevent such individuals--even if they
have successfully made their case in a court of law--from receiving
adequate compensation. We are fortunate in this Nation to have many
highly qualified medical professional, and this is especially true in
my own home State of Vermont. Unfortunately, good doctors sometimes
make errors. It is also unfortunate that some not-so-good doctors
manage to make their way into the health care system as well. While we
must do all that we can to support the men and women who commit their
professional lives to caring for others, we must also ensure that
patients have access to adequate remedies should they receive
inadequate care.
High malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice
lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of investment decisions by the
insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-
increasing profits. But an insurer that has made a bad investment, or
that has experienced the same disappointments from Wall Street that so
many Americans have, should not be able to recoup its losses from the
doctors it insures. The insurance company should have to bear the
burdens of its own business model, just as the other businesses in the
economy do.
But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires
a legislative correction--its blanket exemption from federal antitrust
laws. Insurers have for years--too many years--enjoyed a benefit that
is novel in our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits
insurance companies to operate without being subject to most of the
Federal antitrust laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients
have been the worse off for it. Using their exemption, insurers can
collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true
competition would achieve--and because of this exemption, enforcement
officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious
about controlling rising premiums, we must objectively limit this broad
exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance
Antitrust Act of 2003.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Durbin,
Edwards, Rockfeller, Reid, Boxer, Feingold, and Corzine for
cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modified
[[Page S2211]]
the McCarran-Ferguson Act with respect to medical malpractice
insurance, and only for the most pernicious antitrust offenses: price
fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. Only those anticompetitive
practices that most certainly will affect premiums are addressed. I am
hard pressed to imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on
insurance carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories. After all,
the rest of our Nation's industries manage either to abide by these
laws or pay the consequences.
Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within
the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have
antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive
activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation is a scalpel, not
a saw. It would not affect regulation of insurance by State insurance
commissioners and other State regulators. But there is no reason to
continue a system in which the Federal enforcers are precluded from
prosecuting the most harmful antitrust violations just because they are
committed by insurance companies.
Our legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical
aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance rates.
I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then by the
full Senate, will ensure that this important step on the road to
genuine reform is taken before too much more damage is done to the
physicians of this country and to the patients they care for.
Only professional baseball has enjoyed an antitrust exemption
comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran-
Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in
recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt
Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it
applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to
create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with
baseball.
If Congress is serious about controlling rising medical malpractice
insurance premiums, then we must limit the broad exemption to Federal
antitrust law and promote real competition in the insurance industry.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 354. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
establish the National Transportation Modeling and Analysis Program to
complete an advanced transportation simulation model, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that I believe will go a long way in helping to reduce congestion and
improve safety and security throughout the Nation's transportation
network. Today I am introducing the National Transportation Modeling
and Analysis Program Establishment Act, or NATMAP for short.
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to complete an advanced computer model that will
simulate, in a single integrated system, traffic flows over every major
transportation mode, including highways, air traffic, railways, inland
waterways, seaports, pipelines, and other intermodal connections. The
advanced model will simulate flows of both passenger and freight
traffic.
Our transportation network is a central component of our economy and
fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is
the engine of our free market system. The food we eat, the clothes we
wear, the materials for our homes and offices, and the energy to heat
our homes and power our businesses all come to us over the Nation's
vast transportation network. Originating with a producer in one region,
materials and products may travel via any number of combinations of
truck, rail, airplane, and barge before reaching their final
destinations.
Today, the Internet connects the world electronically. But it is our
transportation network that provides the vital links for the movement
of both people and goods domestically and around the world. According
to the latest statistics, our transportation industry carries over 11
billion tons of freight per year worth about $7 trillion. Of the 3.7
trillion ton-miles of freight carried in 1998, 1.4 trillion went by
rail, 1 trillion by truck, 673 billion by domestic water
transportation, 620 billion by pipeline, and 14 billion by air carrier.
Individuals also depend on our transportation system--be it passenger
rail, commercial airline, intercity bus, or the family car--for
business travel or simply to enjoy a family vacation. Excluding public
transit, passengers on our highways traveled a total of 4.2 trillion
passenger-miles in 1998. Airlines carried another 463 billion
passenger-miles. Transit companies and rail lines carried 50 billion.
We are also interconnected to the world's transportation system, and,
as I am sure every Senator well knows, foreign trade is an increasingly
critical component of our economy. Our Nation's seaports, international
airports, and border crossing with Canada and Mexico are the gateways
through which passengers and cargo flow between America and the rest of
the world. The smooth flow of trade, both imports and exports, would
not be possible without a robust transportation network and the direct
links it provides to our international ports of entry.
It should be clear that key to our continuing economic strength is a
transportation system that is safe, secure and efficient. Today, we are
fortunate to have one of the best transportation networks in the world,
and I believe we need to keep it that way. However, we are starting to
see signs of strain from the dramatic increase in traffic. For example,
according to the Department of Transportation, from 1980 to 2000,
highway travel alone increased a whopping 80 percent. Between 1993 and
1997, the total tons of freight activity grew by over 14 percent and
truck activity grew by 21 percent. In the future, truck travel is
expected to grow by more than 3 percent per year--nearly doubling by
2020. As a result of the increased highway traffic, the operational
performance, a measure of congestion, has deteriorated dramatically.
For example, FHWA estimates that a typical trip that would take 20
minutes in 1987 now takes over 30 minutes--a dramatic 50 percent
increase.
Meanwhile, the strong growth in foreign trade is putting increased
pressure on ports, airports, and border crossings, as well as
contributing to congestion throughout the transportation network.
According to DoT, U.S. international trade more than doubled between
1990 and 2000, rising from $891 billion to $2.2 trillion.
Congestion and delay inevitably result when traffic rates approach
the capacity of a system to handle that traffic. I do believe increased
congestion in our transportation system is a growing threat to the
nation's economy. Delays in any part of the vast network lead to
economic costs, wasted fuel, increased pollution, and a reduced quality
of life. Moreover, in the future new security measures could also
increase delays and disruptions in the flow of goods through our
international gateways.
To deal with the ever-increasing loading of our transportation
network we will need to find ways to improve system efficiency as well
as to expand some critical elements of the system. However, in planning
for any improvements, we must examine the impact on the whole
transportation system that would result from a change in one part of
the system That's exactly the goal of the bill I am introducing today.
By simulating the Nation's entire transportation infrastructure as a
single, integrated system, the National Transportation Analysis and
Modeling Program will allow policy makers at the State, regional, and
national levels to evaluate the implications of new transportation
policies and actions. To ensure that all possible interrelated impacts
are included, the model must simulate individual carriers and the
transportation infrastructure used by each of the carriers in an
interdependent and dynamic system. The advantage of this simulation of
individual carriers and shipments is that the nation's transportation
system can be examined at any level of detail--from the path of an
individual truck to national multi-modal traffic flows.
Some of the transportation planning issues that could be addressed
with NATMAP include: What infrastructure improvements result in the
greatest
[[Page S2212]]
gains to overall system security and efficiency? How would the network
respond to shifts in population or trade flows? How would the system
respond to major disruptions caused by a natural disaster or another
unthinkable terrorist attack? What effect would system delays due to
increased security measures have on traffic flow and congestion?
Preliminary work on an advanced transportation model has been
underway for several years at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As I'm
sure most senators know, Los Alamos has a long and impressive history
in computer simulations of complex systems, including the recent
completion of the TRANSIMS model of transportation systems in
metropolitan areas. The development of TRANSIMS for FHWA was originally
authorized in section 1210 of TEA-21. NATMAP builds on the original
work at LANL on the TRANSIMS model.
The initial work at LANL on NATMAP, funded in part by DoT, DoD, and
the lab's own internal research and development program, demonstrated
the technical feasibility of building a nation-wide freight
transportation model that can simulate the movement of millions of
trucks across the nation's highway system. During this initial
development phase, the model was called the National Transportation
Network and Analysis Capability, or NTNAC for short. In 2001, with
funding from the Federal Highway Administration, LANL further developed
the model and completed an assessment of cargo flows resulting from
trade between the U.S. and Latin America.
These preliminary studies have clearly demonstrated the value to the
nation of a new comprehensive modeling system. I do believe that the
computer model represents a leap ahead in transportation modeling and
analysis capability. Indeed, Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta,
in a letter to me dated April 9 of this year, had this to say about the
early simulations: ``The DOT agrees that NTNAC shows great promise of
producing a tool that would be useful for analyzing the national
transportation system as a single, integrated system. We agree that
NTNAC would provide DOT with important new capabilities to assess and
formulate critical policy and investment options and to help address
homeland security and vulnerabilities in the nation's transportation
network.''
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Secretary Mineta's letter be
printed in the Record.
The bill I am introducing today establishes a six-year program in the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to complete the development
of the advanced transportation simulation model. The program will also
support early deployment of computer software and graphics packages to
federal agencies and states for national, regional, or statewide
transportation planning. The bill authorizes a total of $50 million
from the Highway Trust Fund for this effort. When completed, NATMAP
will provide the nation a tool to help formulate and analyze critical
transportation policy and investment options, including major
infrastructure requirements and vulnerabilities within that
infrastructure.
Congress will soon take up the reauthorization of TEA-21, the six-
year transportation bill. I am introducing this bill today so my
proposal can be fully considered by the Senate's Environment and Public
Works Committee and by the Administration as the next authorization
bill is being developed. I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe,
the Chairman of the EPW Committee, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking
member, as well as Senator Bond, the Chairman of the Transportation,
Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee and Senator Reid, the
ranking member, to incorporate this bill in the reauthorization of TEA-
21.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 354
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 ``National Transportation
Modeling and Analysis Program Establishment Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advanced model.--The term ``advanced model'' means the
advanced transportation simulation model developed under the
National Transportation Network and Analysis Capability
Program.
(2) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the National
Transportation Modeling and Analysis Program established
under section 3.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
The Secretary of Transportation shall establish a program,
to be known as the ``National Transportation Modeling and
Analysis Program''--
(1) to complete the advanced model; and
(2) to support early deployment of computer software and
graphics packages for the advanced model to agencies of the
Federal Government and to States for national, regional, or
statewide transportation planning.
SEC. 4. SCOPE OF PROGRAM.
The Program shall provide for a simulation of the national
transportation infrastructure as a single, integrated system
that--
(1) incorporates models of--
(A) each major transportation mode, including--
(i) highways;
(ii) air traffic;
(iii) railways;
(iv) inland waterways;
(v) seaports;
(vi) pipelines; and
(vii) other intermodal connections; and
(B) passenger traffic and freight traffic;
(2) is resolved to the level of individual transportation
vehicles, including trucks, trains, vessels, and aircraft;
(3) relates traffic flows to issues of economics, the
environment, national security, energy, and safety;
(4) analyzes the effect on the United States transportation
system of Mexican and Canadian trucks operating in the United
States; and
(5) examines the effects of various security procedures and
regulations on cargo flow at ports of entry.
SEC. 5. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
Under the Program, the Secretary shall--
(1) complete the advanced model;
(2) develop user-friendly advanced transportation modeling
computer software and graphics packages;
(3) provide training and technical assistance with respect
to the implementation and application of the advanced model
to Federal agencies and to States for use in national,
regional, or statewide transportation planning; and
(4) allocate funds to not more than 3 entities described in
paragraph (3), representing diverse applications and
geographic regions, to carry out pilot programs to
demonstrate use of the advanced model for national, regional,
or statewide transportation planning.
SEC. 6. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) to carry out this Act--
(1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(3) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(4) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(5) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(6) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--
(1) Fiscal years 2004 and 2005.--For each of fiscal years
2004 and 2005, 100 percent of the funds made available under
subsection (a) shall be used to carry out activities
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 5.
(2) Fiscal years 2006 through 2009.--For each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2009, not more than 50 percent of the
funds made available under subsection (a) may be used to
carry out activities described in section 5(4).
(c) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized under this
section shall be available for obligation in the same manner
as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code, except that the Federal share of the cost
of--
(1) any activity described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
section 5 shall be 100 percent; and
(2) any activity described in section 5(4) shall not exceed
80 percent.
(d) Availability of Funds.--Funds made available under this
section shall be available to the Secretary through the
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development Account of
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
____
The Secretary of Transportation,
Washington, DC., April 9, 2002.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Jeff: Thank you for your letter of January 30
expressing your strong support to continue the development of
the National Transportation Network Analysis Capability
(NTNAC). The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office
of Policy and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have
been working closely with Los Alamos National Laboratory to
develop this tool.
During 1998, Los Alamos National Laboratory developed a
prototype NTNAC with funding provided by the DOT ($50,000
from
[[Page S2213]]
the Office of the Secretary's Transportation Policy
Development Office), the U.S. Department of Defense
(TRANSCOM's Military Transportation Management Command), and
the Laboratory's own internal research and development
program. This effort demonstrated the technical feasibility
of building a national transportation network that can
simulate the movements of individual carriers (trucks,
trains, planes, water vessels, and pipelines) and individual
freight shippers.
During 1999, FHWA provided $750,000 to further develop
NTNAC and to complete the study ``National Transportation
Impact of Latin American Trade Flows.''
The DOT agrees that NTNAC shows great promise of producing
a tool that would be useful for analyzing the national
transportation system as a single, integrated system. We
agree that NTNAC would provide DOT with important new
capabilities to assess and formulate critical policy and
investment options and to help address homeland security and
vulnerabilities in the Nation's transportation network.
However, the Department's budget is very limited. It would
be difficult to find funding to continue the project this
year. If funding should become available, we will give
priority consideration to continuing the NTNAC development
effort.
Again, I very much appreciate your thoughts on the
importance of continuing the development of NTNAC. If I can
provide further information or assistance, please fell free
to call me.
Sincerely yours,
Normal Y. Mineta.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Coleman and Mr. Johnson):
S. 355. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit for biodiesel fuel; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Talent):
S. 356. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to increase the
allowable credit for biodiesel use under the alternatively fueled
vehicle purchase requirement; to the Committee on energy and Natural
Resources.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Smith):
S. 357. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the credit for the production of fuel from nonconventional sources to
include production of fuel from agricultural and animal waste; to the
Committee on Finance.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN:
S. 358. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the credit for the production of fuel from nonconventional sources for
the production of electricity to include landfill gas; to the Committee
on Finance.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 359. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the credit for the production of electricity to include electricity
produced from municipal solid waste; to the Committee on Finance.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN:
S. 360. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat
natural gas distribution lines as 10-year property for depreciation
purposes; to the Committee on Finance
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Harkin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 361. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
for an energy efficient appliance credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my package of
alternative energy and energy efficiency bills. These bills all work in
concert toward a single goal--promoting the use of cleaner, renewable
energy for this nation.
For several decades, the U.S. has relied on foreign sources of energy
supply. Worldwide demand for energy has continued to increase, while
our domestic resource base has decreased, leaving the country
vulnerable in the event of foreign supply disruptions. This year, the
U.S. will import 60 percent of its crude oil needs this year. The
events of September 11th have focused attention on the need to develop
a new energy policy that focuses on creating new domestic sources. Our
Nation needs to explore and develop all possible domestic options as
resources for our energy supply. To reduce our dependence on foreign
imports, it is imperative that policy makers create incentives to
promote technologies that can produce quality alternative products. Our
national security demands that the government undertake programs which
assure the implementation of real alternative fuel technologies.
It is in the best security interests of our Nation to reduce our
reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be
subject to the whims and manipulations of foreign cartels like OPEC.
Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the Middle
East are the even more sinister possibilities that we face in other
parts of the world. Developments in many regions of the world where
much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian
Sea, Indonesia, Venezuela, and so forth--clearly serve notice that our
Nation cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy
needs. These events make it more pressing than ever that we proceed
forward with the development of our own domestic alternative energy
resources.
In the last Congress, both the House and the Senate passed
comprehensive energy bills that would have brought us closer to these
goals. In the Senate bill, we were able to strike a delicate balance
between using our resources for energy and preserving our environment
for future generations. I was pleased with the Senate version of the
Energy Policy Act of 2002, and was disappointed that conferees were
unable to iron out differences with the House of Representatives before
adjournment. We must make energy independence a national priority
because it is now essential to our homeland security.
Looking ahead, I will continue my work to build a cohesive national
energy policy that ultimately reduces our dependence on foreign oil. To
accomplish this goal, we must provide access to more resources,
transmit these resources to the consumer, and encourage industrial and
individual consumers to use more renewable energy sources. These
important steps will lead to greater reliability and lower energy costs
for consumers.
We should all work again in the 108th Congress to adopt a
comprehensive energy plan that sets America on the road to energy
independence and assures consumers of a reliable and affordable energy
supply.
The legislation I am introducing today will encourage production of
biodiesel and its use in this country; to promote the manufacture of
energy efficient home appliances; to encourage the use of fuels
produced from animal and agricultural wastes; to encourage the use of
our waste sources such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste to
produce energy; and to spur the investment in delivering fuels to rural
America. These incentives for production and use of clean and renewable
fuels can help bridge the investment cost gap between production of
petroleum and renewable energy.
Each of these bills were either included or debated in the Senate
during last year's Senate consideration and passage of the energy bill.
I look forward to their inclusion in the debate and inclusion in any
energy bill to be passed by the Senate during the 108th Congress.
The first bill I am introducing today is the Biodiesel Promotion Act
of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators
Grassley, Hagel, Dayton, Harkin, Durbin, Coleman, and Johnson. This
legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel
from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure
that biodiesel becomes a central component of this nation's automobile
fuel market.
This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and
Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is
intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we
draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress.
This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel
excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill
provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from
virgin agricultural oils blended
[[Page S2214]]
with diesel up to 20 percent. The legislation will also provide a half-
cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled
agricultural oils or animal fats.
Also importantly, in the year that we are to reauthorize the
Transportation Enhancement Act of 1996, the bill provides for
reimbursing the Highway Trust Fund from the USDA Commodity Credit
Corporation, CCC. This procedure will protect the Trust Fund from lost
revenues due to the biodiesel incentive while providing a much-needed
boost to our nation's biodiesel industry. The cost to the CCC would be
offset at least initially by the savings under the marketing loan
program.
Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil
including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely
renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with
petroleum diesel. A biodiesel-diesel blend typically contains up to 20
percent renewable content. It can be added directly into the gas tank
of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major
modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic,
contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to
meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel
also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the
sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent.
Even after years of research and market development, biodiesel is not
yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to be so, market
support and tax incentives are needed. I believe the provisions
provided in this bill will help in leveling the field for biodiesel
blends and help jumpstart this new industry.
The time is right for this investment. It is right for our rural
economy, for our environment, and for our national energy security and
I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting the Biodiesel
Promotion Act of 2003.
The second component of my package is the EPACT Alternative Fuel
Flexibility Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators
Bond and Talent in introducing this legislation.
The purpose of this legislation is to place biodiesel fuel on equal
footing with every other alternative motor fuel used in this nation.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPACT, set a national objective to
shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward
renewable and domestically produced energy sources. When EPACT was
passed in 1992, it recognized ethanol, natural gas, propane,
electricity, and methanol as alternative fuels. The original list of
alternative fuels did not include biodiesel because the technology had
not been fully developed.
EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by
2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report issued in
July of 2001 noted that ``limited progress has been made in increasing
the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles, AFV, in the national vehicle
fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to conventional
vehicles and fuels.
We did not meet the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of
petroleum-based fuels by 2000. Today we are not on track to meet the
goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we haven't even come
close, and that's partly a result of not allowing all alternative fuels
to be used to meet the EPACT alternative fuel mandates.
This legislation will significantly increase the use of alternative
fuels by allowing EPACT covered fleets to meet up to 100 percent of the
EPACT purchase requirements through the use of biodiesel. Currently,
covered fleets can only meet up to 50 percent of purchase requirements
with biodiesel.
By offering an additional option for the use of alternative fuels, we
will widen the possibilities for these fuels to be made more widely
available. Fleets will continue to have the option to choose the
complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs. This
legislation is not expected to affect fleets that are currently using
ethanol or natural gas. But this legislation does provide a further
option for alternative fuel vehicles. Furthermore, it does not directly
displace natural gas or ethanol sales, since biodiesel is used in
medium- and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles.
By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by
using biodiesel, we'll take a positive step toward moving this country
away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward
alternative motor fuels. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
The third bill I introduce today as part of my energy independence
package is the Animal and Agricultural Waste Renewable Energy
Production Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators
Hagel, Bond, and Kerry in introducing this legislation.
This legislation would provide a credit under Section 29 of the tax
code for the production of fuels from animal and agricultural wastes.
Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce
significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and
animal wastes in an environmentally friendly manner. Production
incentives are needed to assure implementation and commercialization of
this new generation of technology.
Section 29 was originally enacted to provide an incentive to produce
alternative and hard-to-reach fuels that could compete with fossil
fuels and hopefully reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. As
originally enacted, a number of ``non-conventional fuels'' were
eligible for the credit, including the following: oil from shale; oil
from tar sands; natural gas from geo-pressured brine, coal seams,
Devonian shale, or tight sands; liquid, gaseous or solid synthetic fuel
from coal, including coke and coke by-products; gas from biomass,
including wood; steam from solid agricultural by-products; and
processed solid wood fuels.
Other biomass by-products, such as agricultural and animal oils and
solids, also should qualify the same as liquid or gaseous synthetic
fuels derived from coal.
New technological advances have been developed which will convert
these biomass wastes efficiently to alternative fuels. The most readily
available of these wastes are agricultural and animal wastes, municipal
wastes, plastics, used tires, and forest product wastes. This
production incentive opportunity would provide significant new annual
quantities of alternative fuel to replace foreign imported oil and
should be considered a government investment in the nation's future.
If these incentives are implemented, large marketable quantities of
quality alternative fuel products can be produced as a replacement for
foreign imported oil. These processes can achieve the desired results
in an environmentally positive way that essentially converts all wastes
to products and provides an answer for waste disposal problems. To
achieve these results, financial incentives need be provided from the
government. Section 29 should be extended to include alternative fuels
produced from all biomass wastes and I encourage all of my colleagues
to join us in supporting this legislation.
The fourth bill I am introducing today is the Capturing Landfill Gas
for Energy Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under
either Section 29 or Section 45 of the tax code for the production of
energy from landfill gas, LFG. It is designed to encourage additional
collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage
decomposing in America's landfills. LFG is a renewable fuel that can be
used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning
vehicle fuel, as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can
power generators to produce electricity.
Congress recognized the importance of LFG for energy diversity and
national security by providing such a credit in 1980 and extending it
for nearly two decades. With today's critical energy needs and emphasis
on distributed generation, this incentive makes more sense than ever.
Most of the 360 LFG projects that currently are operating were made
economically feasible by the ``non-conventional-source fuel''
production tax credit under Section 29 of the tax code.
But since June 30, 1998, that credit to encourage construction of new
LFG projects has been unavailable, and few have been constructed since
that date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 600-
700 more LFG projects could be constructed nationwide if there were
sufficient economic incentives in place to foster
[[Page S2215]]
their development. With such incentives, it is likely that about 55 new
projects would be brought on line each year. Just one medium-sized
project could provide three megawatts of electrical power capacity--
enough to meet the electricity needs of 3,000 homes each year.
In addition to the value of LFG as an important contribution to our
overall energy strategy, there are compelling environmental reasons to
encourage these projects. Uncontrolled landfill gas can create fire
hazards and odors and can impair air quality. The methane in landfill
gas is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to
collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find
it more economic to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than
use the methane. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the
gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act.
Thus, LFG projects not only reduce local and regional air pollution
while yielding a renewable source of energy, they can also reduce the
country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial
amount at a relatively small cost.
Unfortunately, the potential energy and environmental benefits of
future LFG projects are substantial, but they will be lost without
adequate LFG tax provisions to support project development. On average,
the total capital cost of constructing an LFG-fueled electricity
generating project is about $1 million per megawatt, and the annual
operating and maintenance costs average another $150,000 per megawatt.
The average capital cost of a new direct use fuel production and
delivery project is about $2.5 million, with annual operation and
maintenance costs of about $350,000.
My bill proposes sufficient, yet sensible, tax incentives to
encourage these large investments, and I urge my colleagues to join me
and support LFG tax credits.
Today I am also pleased to be joined by Senator Akaka in introducing
the fifth component of my energy package--the Waste to Energy
Utilization Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under
Section 45 of the tax code for new waste-to-energy facilities or new
generating units at existing facilities. Such a tax credit encourages
clean renewable electricity and promotes energy diversity, while
helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal.
Nearly 2000 communities nationwide rely on waste-to-energy facilities
to safely dispose of trash and generate clean, renewable energy that
meets the power need of more than two and a half million homes. The
U.S. Conference of Mayors has repeatedly urged Congress to include
provisions that promote waste-to-energy in tax legislation and they are
joined by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.
Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in
understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and
significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have
been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of
waste is reduced by greater than 90 percent in a waste-to-energy
facility, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of
greenhouse gases are avoided annually by the combustion of municipal
solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean,
renewable energy.
Local governments spent about $1 billion over the past five years on
air pollution control equipment to comply with EPA's Maximum Achievable
Control Technology, MACT, standards required under the Clean Air Act.
These retrofits have made waste-to-energy one of the cleanest power
generators in the country. In June, EPA announced that these facilities
have shown ``outstanding performance'' resulting in ``dramatic
decreases'' in emissions, resulting in reductions of mercury emissions
of more than 95 percent from a decade ago. Communities with waste-to-
energy facilities recycle 33 percent of their trash, on average, and
historically have more successful recycling programs than cities
without waste-to-energy plants.
We must sustain a level marketplace to achieve energy diversity and
economic growth. I believe this Senate should pass tax legislation that
includes production tax credits to spur energy generation, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to join us and support this legislation.
The sixth bill I introduce today is the Resource Efficient Appliance
Incentives Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this
bill by Senators Allard, Grassley, Harkin, Stabenow, Hagel, Levin, and
DeWine.
This legislation will provide a tax credit for the production of
super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those
appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. The tax
credit would only be available for five years and would be capped for
each manufacturer.
In 2001, the Department of Energy issued new energy efficiency
standards for clothes washers. This agreement accompanies rules for
higher efficiency refrigerators issued by the department two years ago.
The new rules are significant because clothes washers, clothes dryers,
and refrigerators account for approximately 15 percent of all household
energy consumed in the U.S. annually. The tax incentives contained in
this legislation are constructed to encourage manufacturers not only to
exceed these new efficiency requirements, but to exceed them by up to
35 percent.
Tax incentives are essential to accelerate the production and market
penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create
significant environmental benefits. The need for super energy-efficient
appliances is greater this year than at any time in the past 20 years.
Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion BTUs of energy will
be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the
road or making available for other uses the energy of six coal-fired
power plants for a year.
In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water
necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to
the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for
two years. The water savings attributable to these new technology
machines is not based on some computer generated model but an actual
case study that gathered data in the small community of Bern, KS by the
Dept. of Energy's esteemed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1998.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers estimates these super
energy-efficient appliances could save the average family $100 per
year--or $1,400 per family over the lifetime of the appliance. This
legislation will create the incentives necessary to increase the
production and sale of these super energy-efficient appliances in the
short term while passing along energy savings to the American consumer.
As a DOE analysis indicates, high efficiency washers and
refrigerators are significantly more expensive to manufacture than
those that simply meet existing federal standards. Further, market
surveys of consumers indicate that they are generally not willing to
pay more for high efficiency appliances, even when it can be
demonstrated that high efficiency appliances will generate greater
savings in utility costs over time. The tax credit will provide an
incentive for manufacturers to develop a greater selection of super
efficient models that will appeal to consumers at all price points. In
addition, to assure increased sales of these appliances, manufacturers
will be encouraged to redirect their marketing and advertising
resources toward the high efficiency models. Enactment of this
legislation will bring immediate, significant, and lasting
environmental benefits to the nation, and I encourage all of my
colleagues to join us in supporting in this effort.
The final bill I am introducing today is the Gas Distribution
Infrastructure Investment Act of 2003. This legislation will amend the
Internal Revenue Code to modify the depreciation of natural gas
pipelines, equipment, and infrastructure assets from 20 to 10 years.
America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during
the next 20 years. Consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost
twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational
benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60
[[Page S2216]]
percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this
projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas
infrastructure. This is especially true with respect to the delivery
sector. Higher capacity utilization of existing infrastructure will
meet some of this increased demand, but the delivery sector still will
require capital investments of at least $123 billion for infrastructure
enhancement and additions.
Shrinking the lifetime over which an asset is depreciated does not
change the amount of expense a company is allowed to claim over the
asset's useful life, but simply shortens the expensing period for tax
purposes. This shortened tax life generates higher cash flows in terms
of reduced tax liability during the asset's early useful lifetime.
Conversely, the cash flows are decreased, relative to the longer
depreciation life, during the later part of the asset's useful life.
The overall impact is zero on a gross basis.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Infrastructure development and expansion is crucial if America's homes
are to continue to rely on clean-burning natural gas to heat their
homes and fuel their appliances.
I ask unanimous consent that each of the seven bills I am introducing
today be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 355
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 ``Biodiesel Promotion Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. INCENTIVES FOR BIODIESEL.
(a) Credit for Biodiesel Used as a Fuel.--
(1) In general.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by inserting after
section 40 the following new section:
``SEC. 40A. BIODIESEL USED AS FUEL.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
biodiesel fuels credit determined under this section for the
taxable year is an amount equal to the biodiesel mixture
credit.
``(b) Definition of Biodiesel Mixture Credit.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) Biodiesel mixture credit.--
``(A) In general.--The biodiesel mixture credit of any
taxpayer for any taxable year is the sum of the products of
the biodiesel mixture rate for each qualified biodiesel
mixture and the number of gallons of such mixture of the
taxpayer for the taxable year.
``(B) Biodiesel mixture rate.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the biodiesel mixture rate for each qualified biodiesel
mixture shall be--
``(i) in the case of a mixture with only biodiesel V, 1
cent for each whole percentage point (not exceeding 20
percentage points) of biodiesel V in such mixture, and
``(ii) in the case of a mixture with biodiesel NV, or a
combination of biodiesel V and biodiesel NV, 0.5 cent for
each whole percentage point (not exceeding 20 percentage
points) of such biodiesel in such mixture.
``(2) Qualified biodiesel mixture.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified biodiesel mixture'
means a mixture of diesel and biodiesel V or biodiesel NV
which--
``(i) is sold by the taxpayer producing such mixture to any
person for use as a fuel, or
``(ii) is used as a fuel by the taxpayer producing such
mixture.
``(B) Sale or use must be in trade or business, etc.--
``(i) In general.--Biodiesel V or biodiesel NV used in the
production of a qualified biodiesel mixture shall be taken
into account--
``(I) only if the sale or use described in subparagraph (A)
is in a trade or business of the taxpayer, and
``(II) for the taxable year in which such sale or use
occurs.
``(ii) Certification for biodiesel v.--Biodiesel V used in
the production of a qualified biodiesel mixture shall be
taken into account only if the taxpayer described in
subparagraph (A) obtains a certification from the producer of
the biodiesel V which identifies the product produced.
``(C) Casual off-farm production not eligible.--No credit
shall be allowed under this section with respect to any
casual off-farm production of a qualified biodiesel mixture.
``(c) Coordination With Exemption From Excise Tax.--The
amount of the credit determined under this section with
respect to any biodiesel V shall, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, be properly reduced to take into
account any benefit provided with respect to such biodiesel V
solely by reason of the application of section 4041(n) or
section 4081(f).
``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Biodiesel v defined.--The term `biodiesel V' means
the monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived solely
from virgin vegetable oils for use in compressional-ignition
(diesel) engines. Such term shall include esters derived from
vegetable oils from corn, soybeans, sunflower seeds,
cottonseeds, canola, crambe, rapeseeds, safflowers,
flaxseeds, rice bran, and mustard seeds.
``(2) Biodiesel nv defined.--The term `biodiesel NV' means
the monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from
nonvirgin vegetable oils or animal fats for use in
compressional-ignition (diesel) engines.
``(3) Registration requirements.--The terms `biodiesel V'
and `biodiesel NV' shall only include a biodiesel which
meets--
``(i) the registration requirements for fuels and fuel
additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545), and
``(ii) the requirements of the American Society of Testing
and Materials D6751.
``(4) Biodiesel mixture not used as a fuel, etc.--
``(A) Imposition of tax.--If--
``(i) any credit was determined under this section with
respect to biodiesel V or biodiesel NV used in the production
of any qualified biodiesel mixture, and
``(ii) any person--
``(I) separates such biodiesel from the mixture, or
``(II) without separation, uses the mixture other than as a
fuel,
then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to
the product of the biodiesel mixture rate applicable under
subsection (b)(1)(B) and the number of gallons of the
mixture.
``(B) Applicable laws.--All provisions of law, including
penalties, shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent
with this section, apply in respect of any tax imposed under
subparagraph (A) as if such tax were imposed by section 4081
and not by this chapter.
``(5) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(e) Election To Have Biodiesel Fuels Credit Not Apply.--
``(1) In general.--A taxpayer may elect to have this
section not apply for any taxable year.
``(2) Time for making election.--An election under
paragraph (1) for any taxable year may be made (or revoked)
at any time before the expiration of the 3-year period
beginning on the last date prescribed by law for filing the
return for such taxable year (determined without regard to
extensions).
``(3) Manner of making election.--An election under
paragraph (1) (or revocation thereof) shall be made in such
manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.
``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
fuel sold after December 31, 2005.''.
(2) Credit treated as part of general business credit.--
Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (14), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(16) the biodiesel fuels credit determined under section
40A(a).''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 39(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) No carryback of biodiesel fuels credit before
january 1, 2003.--No portion of the unused business credit
for any taxable year which is attributable to the biodiesel
fuels credit determined under section 40A may be carried back
to a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2003.''.
(B) Section 196(c) of such Code is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (9), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (10), and by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(11) the biodiesel fuels credit determined under section
40A(a).''.
(C) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by inserting
``40A(e),'' after ``40(f),''.
(D) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
after the item relating to section 40 the following new item:
``Sec. 40A. Biodiesel used as fuel.''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
(b) Reduction of Motor Fuel Excise Taxes on Biodiesel V
Mixtures.--
(1) In general.--Section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to manufacturers tax on petroleum products)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Biodiesel V Mixtures.--Under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary--
``(1) In general.--In the case of the removal or entry of a
qualified biodiesel mixture with biodiesel V, the rate of tax
under subsection (a) shall be the otherwise applicable rate
reduced by the biodiesel mixture rate (if any) applicable to
the mixture.
``(2) Tax prior to mixing.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of the removal or entry of
diesel fuel for use in producing at the time of such removal
or entry a qualified biodiesel mixture with biodiesel V, the
rate of tax under subsection (a) shall be the rate determined
under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Determination of rate.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the rate determined under this subparagraph is the rate
determined under paragraph (1), divided by a
[[Page S2217]]
percentage equal to 100 percent minus the percentage of
biodiesel V which will be in the mixture.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, any
term used in this subsection which is also used in section
40A shall have the meaning given such term by section 40A.
``(4) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (6) and (7) of subsection (c) shall apply for
purposes of this subsection.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 4041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Biodiesel V Mixtures.--Under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary, in the case of the sale or use of a
qualified biodiesel mixture (as defined in section 40A(b)(2))
with biodiesel V, the rates under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a) shall be the otherwise applicable rates,
reduced by any applicable biodiesel mixture rate (as defined
in section 40A(b)(1)(B)).''.
(B) Section 6427 of such Code is amended by redesignating
subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by inserting after
subsection (o) the following new subsection:
``(p) Biodiesel V Mixtures.--Except as provided in
subsection (k), if any diesel fuel on which tax was imposed
by section 4081 at a rate not determined under section
4081(f) is used by any person in producing a qualified
biodiesel mixture (as defined in section 40A(b)(2)) with
biodiesel V which is sold or used in such person's trade or
business, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to such
person an amount equal to the per gallon applicable biodiesel
mixture rate (as defined in section 40A(b)(1)(B)) with
respect to such fuel.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to any fuel sold after December 31, 2002, and
before January 1, 2006.
(c) Highway Trust Fund Held Harmless.--There are hereby
transferred (from time to time) from the funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation amounts determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury to be equivalent to the reductions
that would occur (but for this subsection) in the receipts of
the Highway Trust Fund by reason of the amendments made by
this section.
S. 356
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 ``EPACT Alternative Fuel
Flexibility Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. BIODIESEL FUEL USE CREDITS.
Section 312(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13220(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) Use of Credits.--'' and all that
follows through ``At the request'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Use of Credits.--At the request''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
S. 357
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF FUEL FROM
NONCONVENTIONAL SOURCES TO INCLUDE PRODUCTION
OF FUEL FROM AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL WASTE.
(a) In General.--Section 29(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to definition of qualified fuels) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)(ii),
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) liquid, gaseous, or solid fuels from qualified
agricultural and animal waste, including such fuels when used
as feedstocks.''.
(b) Qualified Agricultural and Animal Waste.--
(1) In general.--Section 29(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Qualified agricultural and animal waste.--The term
`qualified agricultural and animal waste' means agriculture
and animal waste, including by-products, packaging, and any
materials associated with the processing, feeding, selling,
transporting, or disposal of agricultural or animal products
or wastes, including wood shavings, straw, rice hulls, and
other bedding for the disposition of manure.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 29(c)(3) of such Code is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) qualified agricultural and animal waste.''.
(c) Extension of Credit.--Section 29(g) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to extension for certain
facilities) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Facilities producing fuels from agricultural and
animal waste.--In the case of facility for producing
qualified fuels described in subsection (c)(1)(D)--
``(A) for purposes of subsection (f)(1)(B), such facility
shall be treated as being placed in service before January 1,
1993, if such facility is placed in service after January 1,
2003, and before January 1, 2008, and
``(B) if such facility is originally placed in service
after December 31, 1992, paragraph (2) of subsection (f)
shall be applied with respect to such facility by
substituting `January 1, 2018' for `January 1, 2003'.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuels sold after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
S. 358
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR PRODUCING FUEL FROM LANDFILL GAS.
(a) In General.--Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to credit for producing fuel from a
nonconventional source) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Extension and Modification for Facilities Producing
Qualified Fuels From Landfill Gas.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a facility for producing
qualified fuel from landfill gas which is placed in service
after June 30, 1998, and before January 1, 2008, this section
shall apply to fuel produced at such facility during the 5-
year period beginning on the later of--
``(A) the date such facility was placed in service, or
``(B) the date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(2) Reduction of credit for production from certain
landfill gas facilities.--In the case of a facility to which
paragraph (1) applies which is located at a landfill which is
required pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) or 40 CFR 60.33c to
install and operate a collection and control system which
captures gas generated within the landfill, subsection (a)(1)
shall be applied to gas so captured by substituting `$2' for
`$3' for the taxable year during which such system is
required to be installed and operated.
``(3) Special rules.--In determining the amount of credit
allowable under this section solely by reason of this
subsection--
``(A) Daily limit.--The amount of qualified fuels sold
during any taxable year which may be taken into account by
reason of this subsection with respect to any facility shall
not exceed an average barrel-of-oil equivalent of 200,000
cubic feet of natural gas per day. Days before the date the
facility is placed in service shall not be taken into account
in determining such average.
``(B) Extension period to commence with unadjusted credit
amount.--In the case of fuels sold after 2003, subparagraph
(B) of subsection (d)(2) shall be applied by substituting
`2003' for `1979'.''.
(b) Additional Definition.--Section 29(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to other definitions and
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9) Landfill gas facility.--
``(A) In general.--A facility for producing qualified fuel
from landfill gas, placed in service before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph, includes all wells,
pipes, and other gas collection equipment installed as part
of the facility over the life of the landfill, including any
modifications or expansions thereof, after the facility is
first placed in service.
``(B) Landfill gas.--The term `landfill gas' means gas
derived from the biodegradation of municipal solid waste.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF
ELECTRICITY TO PRODUCTION FROM LANDFILL GAS.
(a) In General.--Section 45(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining qualified energy resources) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(D) landfill gas.''.
(b) Qualified Facility.--Section 45(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified facility) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Landfill gas facility.--In the case of a facility
using landfill gas to produce electricity, the term
`qualified facility' means any such facility owned by the
taxpayer which is originally placed in service before January
1, 2008.''.
(c) Special Rules and Definitions.--
(1) Reduced credit for certain preefective date
facilities.--Section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to definitions and special rules) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Reduced credit for certain preeffective date
facilities.--In the case of any facility described in
subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) which is placed in service
before the date of the enactment of this subparagraph--
``(A) subsection (a)(1) shall be applied by substituting
`1.0 cents' for `1.5 cents', and
``(B) the 5-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this paragraph shall be substituted in lieu of
the 10-year period in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii).''.
(2) Coordination with section 29.--Section 45(c)(3) of such
Code (relating to qualified facility), as amended by
subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) Coordination with section 29.--The term `qualified
facility' shall not include any facility the production from
which is taken
[[Page S2218]]
into account in determining any credit under section 29 for
the taxable year or any prior taxable year.''.
(3) Landfill gas.--Section 45(c) of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Landfill gas.--The term `landfill gas' means gas
derived from the biodegradation of municipal solid waste.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity sold after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
S. 359
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 ``Waste to Energy Utilization
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE.
(a) In General.--Section 45(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining qualified energy resources) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(D) municipal solid waste.''.
(b) Qualified Facility.--Section 45(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified facility) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Municipal solid waste facility.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a facility or unit using
municipal solid waste to produce electricity, the term
`qualified facility' means--
``(I) any facility owned by the taxpayer which is
originally placed in service on or after date of the
enactment of this subparagraph and before January 1, 2008, or
``(II) any unit owned by the taxpayer which is originally
placed in service and added to another facility on or after
such date of enactment and before January 1, 2008.
``(ii) Special rule.--In the case of a qualified facility
described in clause (i)(II), the 10-year period referred to
in subsection (a) shall be treated as beginning no earlier
than the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.
``(iii) Credit eligibility.--In the case of any qualified
facility described in clause (i), if the owner of such
facility is not the producer of the electricity, the person
eligible for the credit allowable under subsection (a) is the
lessee or the operator of such facility.''.
(c) Definition.--Section 45(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid
waste' has the meaning given the term `solid waste' under
section 2(27) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6903).''.
(d) No Credit for Certain Production.--Section 45(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(8) Operations inconsistent with solid waste disposal
act.--In the case of a qualified facility described in
subsection (c)(3)(D), subsection (a) shall not apply to
electricity produced at such facility during any taxable year
if, during a portion of such year, there is a certification
in effect by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency that such facility was permitted in a
manner inconsistent with section 4003(d) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6943(d)).''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity sold after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
S. 360
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION LINES TREATED AS 10-YEAR
PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(e)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to classification
of certain property) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of clause (i), by striking the period at the end of
clause (ii) and by inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new clause:
``(iii) any natural gas distribution line.''.
(b) Alternative System.--The table contained in section
168(g)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by inserting after the item relating to subparagraph (D)(ii)
the following:
``(D)(iii)........................................................20''.
(c) Alternative Minimum Tax Exception.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 56(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by inserting before the period the following: ``or in
clause (iii) of section 168(e)(3)(D)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
S. 361
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 ``Resource Efficient Appliance
Incentives Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 45G. ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the energy
efficient appliance credit determined under this section for
the taxable year is an amount equal to the applicable amount
determined under subsection (b) with respect to the eligible
production of qualified energy efficient appliances produced
by the taxpayer during the calendar year ending with or
within the taxable year.
``(b) Applicable Amount; Eligible Production.--For purposes
of subsection (a)--
``(1) Applicable amount.--The applicable amount is--
``(A) $50, in the case of--
``(i) a clothes washer which is produced in 2003 with at
least a 1.26 MEF (at least 1.42 MEF for washers produced
after 2003 but not after 2006), or
``(ii) a refrigerator produced in 2003 which consumes at
least 10 percent less kWh per year than the energy
conservation standards for refrigerators promulgated by the
Department of Energy effective July 1, 2001,
``(B) $100, in the case of--
``(i) a clothes washer which is produced in 2003 with at
least a 1.42 MEF (at least 1.5 MEF for washers produced after
2003 and before 2008), or
``(ii) a refrigerator produced after 2002 and before 2007
which consumes at least 15 percent less kWh per year (at
least 20 percent less kWh per year for refrigerators produced
in 2007) than such energy conservation standards, and
``(C) $150, in the case of a refrigerator which consumes at
least 20 percent less kWh per year than such energy
conservation standards and is produced after 2002 and before
2007.
``(2) Eligible production.--
``(A) In general.--The eligible production of each category
of qualified energy efficient appliances is the excess of--
``(i) the number of appliances in such category which are
produced by the taxpayer during such calendar year, over
``(ii) the average number of appliances in such category
which were produced by the taxpayer during calendar years
2000, 2001, and 2002.
``(B) Categories.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
categories are--
``(i) clothes washers described in paragraph (1)(A)(i),
``(ii) clothes washers described in paragraph (1)(B)(i),
``(iii) refrigerators described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii),
``(iv) refrigerators described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), and
``(v) refrigerators described in paragraph (1)(C).
``(C) Special rule for 2003 production.--For purposes of
determining eligible production for calendar year 2003--
``(i) only production after the date of enactment of this
section shall be taken into account under subparagraph
(A)(i), and
``(ii) the amount taken into account under subparagraph
(A)(ii) shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the
amount which would (but for this subparagraph) be taken into
account under subparagraph (A)(ii) as--
``(I) the number of days in calendar year 2003 after the
date of enactment of this section, bears to
``(II) 365.
``(c) Limitation on Maximum Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The maximum amount of credit allowed
under subsection (a) with respect to a taxpayer for all
taxable years shall be $60,000,000 except that not more than
$30,000,000 shall be allowed for production of any
combination of clothes washers produced with a 1.26 MEF
(described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)) and refrigerators
described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii).
``(2) Limitation based on gross receipts.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) with respect to a taxpayer for
the taxable year shall not exceed an amount equal to 2
percent of the average annual gross receipts of the taxpayer
for the 3 taxable years preceding the taxable year in which
the credit is determined.
``(3) Gross receipts.--For purposes of this subsection, the
rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) shall
apply.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified energy efficient appliance.--The term
`qualified energy efficient appliance' means--
``(A) a clothes washer described in subparagraph (A)(i) or
(B)(i) of subsection (b)(1), or
``(B) a refrigerator described in subparagraph (A)(ii),
(B)(ii) or (C) of subsection (b)(1).
``(2) Clothes washer.--The term `clothes washer' means a
residential clothes washer, including a residential style
coin operated washer.
``(3) Refrigerator.--The term `refrigerator' means an
automatic defrost refrigerator-freezer which has an internal
volume of at least 16.5 cubic feet.
``(4) MEF.--The term `MEF' means Modified Energy Factor (as
determined by the Secretary of Energy).
``(e) Special Rules.--
``(1) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply for
purposes of this section.
[[Page S2219]]
``(2) Aggregation rules.--All persons treated as a single
employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 or
subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as 1
person for purposes of subsection (a).
``(f) Verification.--The taxpayer shall submit such
information or certification as the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, determines
necessary to claim the credit amount under subsection (a).''.
(b) Limitation on Carryback.--Section 39(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to transition rules) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) No carryback of energy efficient appliance credit
before effective date.--No portion of the unused business
credit for any taxable year which is attributable to the
energy efficient appliance credit determined under section
45G may be carried to a taxable year ending before January 1,
2003.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 38(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general business credit) is
amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (14), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(16) the energy efficient appliance credit determined
under section 45G(a).''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 45G. Energy efficient appliance credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after December 31, 2002,
in taxable years ending after such date.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for
legislation introduced today by Senators Lincoln and Allard, entitled
``The Resource Efficient Appliance Incentive Act of 2003.'' I'm proud
to be an original cosponsor.
This legislation will provide a valuable incentive to accelerate and
expand the production and market penetration of ultra energy-efficient
appliances. By providing a tax credit for the development of super
energy-efficient washing machines and refrigerators, this legislation
creates the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of
these appliances in the short term and ultimately lead to a dramatic
change in consumer purchasing decisions.
Under this proposal, manufacturers would be eligible to claim a
credit of either $50 or $100, depending on efficiency level, for each
super energy-efficient washing machine produced between 2003 and 2007.
Likewise, manufacturers would be eligible to claim a credit of $50,
$100, or $150, depending on efficiency level, for each super energy-
efficient refrigerator produced between 2003 and 2007. It is estimated
that this tax credit will increase the production and purchase of super
energy-efficient washers by almost 200 percent and the purchase of
super energy-efficient refrigerators by over 285 percent.
Equally important is the long-term environmental benefits of the
expanded use of these appliances. Over the life of the appliances, over
200 trillion Btus of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of
taking 2.3 million cars off the road or closing 6 coal-fired power
plants for a year. In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the
amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an
amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of
Phoenix, Arizona for two years. And, the benefits to consumers over the
life of the washers and refrigerators from operational savings is
estimated at nearly $1 billion.
In my home State of Iowa, this legislation would result in the
production of 1.5 million super energy-efficient washers and
refrigerators during the next five years. I also expect Iowans to save
$11 million in operational costs over the life span of the appliances,
and 9 billion gallons of water--enough to supply drinking water for the
entire State for 30 years.
As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I look forward to
working with Senators Lincoln and Allard as we continue to promote
energy conservation and efficiency.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself Ms. Snowe, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 362. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
provide that a monthly insurance benefit thereunder shall be paid for
the month in which the recipient dies, subject to a reduction of 50
percent if the recipient dies during the first 15 days of such month,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue
that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in
Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of
America.
For the fifth Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort
with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair
policy of the Social Security System.
Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family
Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family
security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are
going to give help to those who practice self-help.
What is it I am talking about? I was shocked when I found out that
Social Security does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a
Social Security retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the
30th of the month, the surviving spouse or family members must send
back the Social Security check for that month.
I think that is a harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked
for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the
Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving
spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check
for the last month of life.
This legislation has an urgency. When a loved one dies, there are
expenses that the family must take care of. People have called my
office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is grieving
the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for their mom
or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say,
``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why
do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to
pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or
her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me,
`Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?''
With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going
after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid
into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who
have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's
life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social
Security was supposed to be there for them.
I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives.
What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for
free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want
what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in
our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social
Security check for the last month of our life.''
That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I
are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk
about retirement security, the most important part of that is income
security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security.
We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security
remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to
create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security
Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is
absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last
month of life.
How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward
way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die
before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month.
If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the
family estate would get a check for the full month.
We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are
old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your
father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious
and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well.
The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social
Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That
means fair for the retiree and fair for the
[[Page S2220]]
spouse and family. We strongly feel that the current system is an
injustice to spouses and families across the Nation. Just because a
beneficiary passes away, it does not mean that their bills can go
unpaid. Join us to correct this policy and to ensure that families and
recipients are protected during this difficult time. That is why we
support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep the
Social Security check for the last month of life.
We urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and support the
Social Security Family Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that the
text of my bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 362
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 ``Social Security Family
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF LAST MONTHLY PAYMENT.
(a) Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Benefits.--Section 202
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Last Payment of Monthly Insurance Benefit Terminated by Death
``(z)(1) In any case in which an individual dies during the
first 15 days of a calendar month, the amount of such
individual's monthly insurance benefit under this section
paid for such month shall be an amount equal to 50 percent of
the amount of such benefit (as determined without regard to
this subsection), rounded, if not a multiple of $1, to the
next lower multiple of $1. This subsection shall apply with
respect to such benefit after all other adjustments with
respect to such benefit provided by this title have been
made.
``(2) Any payment under this section by reason of paragraph
(1) shall be made in accordance with section 204(d).''.
(b) Disability Insurance Benefits.--Section 223 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Last Payment of Benefit Terminated by Death
``(k)(1) In any case in which an individual dies during the
first 15 days of a calendar month, the amount of such
individual's monthly insurance benefit under this section
paid for such month shall be an amount equal to 50 percent of
the amount of such benefit (as determined without regard to
this subsection), rounded, if not a multiple of $1, to the
next lower multiple of $1. This subsection shall apply with
respect to such benefit after all other adjustments with
respect to such benefit provided by this title have been
made.
``(2) Any payment under this section by reason of paragraph
(1) shall be made in accordance with section 204(d).''.
(c) Benefits at Age 72 for Certain Uninsured Individuals.--
Section 228 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 428) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Last Payment of Benefit Terminated by Death
``(i)(1) In any case in which an individual dies during the
first 15 days of a calendar month, the amount of such
individual's monthly insurance benefit under this section
paid for such month shall be an amount equal to 50 percent of
the amount of such benefit (as determined without regard to
this subsection), rounded, if not a multiple of $1, to the
next lower multiple of $1. This subsection shall apply with
respect to such benefit after all other adjustments with
respect to such benefit provided by this title have been
made.
``(2) Any payment under this section by reason of paragraph
(1) shall be made in accordance with section 204(d).''.
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REGARDING PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
FOR MONTH OF RECIPIENT'S DEATH.
(a) Old-Age Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(a)(3) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(a)(3)) is amended by
striking ``the month preceding'' in the matter following
subparagraph (B).
(b) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(b)(1)(D) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(D)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and ending with the month'' in the matter
immediately following clause (ii)(II) and inserting ``and
ending with the month in which she dies or (if earlier) with
the month'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as
subparagraphs (E) through (J), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 202(b)(5)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(5)(B)) is amended by
striking ``(E), (F), (H), or (J)'' and inserting ``(E), (G),
or (I)''.
(c) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(c)(1)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(1)(D)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and ending with the month'' in the matter
immediately following clause (ii)(II) and inserting ``and
ending with the month in which he dies or (if earlier) with
the month'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as
subparagraphs (E) through (J), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 202(c)(5)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(B)) is amended by
striking ``(E), (F), (H), or (J)'' and inserting ``(E), (G),
or (I)''.
(d) Child's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(d)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and ending with the month'' in the matter
immediately preceding subparagraph (D) and inserting ``and
ending with the month in which such child dies or (if
earlier) with the month''; and
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``dies, or''.
(e) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(1)) is amended by
striking ``ending with the month preceding the first month in
which any of the following occurs: she remarries, dies,'' in
the matter following subparagraph (F) and inserting ``ending
with the month in which she dies or (if earlier) with the
month preceding the first month in which any of the following
occurs: she remarries, or''.
(f) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(1)) is amended by
striking ``ending with the month preceding the first month in
which any of the following occurs: he remarries, dies,'' in
the matter following subparagraph (F) and inserting ``ending
with the month in which he dies or (if earlier) with the
month preceding the first month in which any of the following
occurs: he remarries,''.
(g) Mother's and Father's Insurance Benefits.--Section
202(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``with the month in which he or she dies
or (if earlier)'' after ``and ending'' in the matter
following subparagraph (F); and
(2) by striking ``he or she remarries, or he or she dies''
and inserting ``or he or she remarries''.
(h) Parent's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(h)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(h)(1)) is amended by
striking ``ending with the month preceding the first month in
which any of the following occurs: such parent dies,
marries,'' in the matter following subparagraph (E) and
inserting ``ending with the month in which such parent dies
or (if earlier) with the month preceding the first month in
which any of the following occurs: such parent marries,''.
(i) Disability Insurance Benefits.--Section 223(a)(1) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``ending with the month preceding whichever of the
following months is the earliest: the month in which he
dies,'' in the matter following subparagraph (D) and
inserting the following: ``ending with the month in which he
dies or (if earlier) with whichever of the following months
is the earliest:''.
(j) Benefits at Age 72 for Certain Uninsured Individuals.--
Section 228(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 428(a))
is amended by striking ``the month preceding'' in the matter
following paragraph (4).
(k) Exemption From Maximum Benefit Cap.--Section 203 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Exemption From Maximum Benefit Cap
``(m) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the application of this section shall be made without regard
to any amount received by reason of section 202(z), 223(j),
or 228(i).''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
deaths occurring after the date that is 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Landrieu,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. 363. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
provide that the reductions in social security benefits which are
required in the case of spouses and surviving spouses who are also
receiving certain Government pensions shall be equal to the amount by
which two-thirds of the total amount of the combined monthly benefit
(before reduction) and monthly pension exceeds $1,200, adjusted for
inflation; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that
is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland
and very important to government workers and retirees across the
Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government
that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits
of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support
and the House companion bill
[[Page S2221]]
had nearly 300 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan
support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this
year.
Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or
entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension
from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by
Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset.
This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who
retires from government service and receives a government pension of
$600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit
of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her
Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal
benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1245, she will
receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent,
purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is
wrong.
My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but
it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees
that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1200 a month in
combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would
apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1200 a month. So, in
the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset,
allowing her to keep $1215 in monthly income.
Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women.
Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and
to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while
they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller
government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social
Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these
women who have contributed years of important government service and
family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income.
The last time Congress passed a bill significantly effecting Social
Security benefits was in 1999. At that time, the Senate unanimously
voted for and passed H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act
of 1999. This legislation ensured that senior citizens who choose to
work or who must work can earn income after retirement without losing a
portion of their Social Security benefit. That law helps senior
citizens who earn above $17,000 per year. In contrast, my bill
specifically targets those with much lower retirement incomes around
$13,000 per year and less. I believe that we must work to ensure a
safety net for all of our seniors--including those retired federal
employees who every day are forced to make difficult choices between
rent, food, and prescription drugs due to the drastic effects of the
government pension offset.
Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of
their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who
provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers,
firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are
currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These
individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the
Pension Offset currently requires.
Government employees work hard in service to our nation, and I work
hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they
have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private
employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If
a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also
received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject
to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward
government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who
work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane,
legislative technicalities.
Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset all together. But, I
realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise,
I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives
should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly
benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit,
exceeds $1,200.
I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying
power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included
a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation
so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the
cost of living.
The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting
the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term
impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable
payroll. Additionally, my bill is bipartisan and is strongly supported
by CARE, the Coalition to Assure Retirement Equity with 43 member
organizations including the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees, NARFE, the American Federation of Federal State County and
Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the National Education Association, NEA,
and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my
legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 363
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 ``Government Pension Offset
Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS FOR SPOUSES AND
SURVIVING SPOUSES RECEIVING GOVERNMENT
PENSIONS.
(a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of
such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and''
after ``two-thirds of ''; and
(2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in
subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if ''.
(b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(2)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of
such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and''
after ``two-thirds of ''; and
(2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in
subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if ''.
(c) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(7)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(7)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of
such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and''
after ``two-thirds of ''; and
(2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in
subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if ''.
(d) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(2)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of
such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and''
after ``two-thirds of ''; and
(2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in
subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if ''.
(e) Mother's and Father's Insurance Benefits.--Section
202(g)(4)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g)(4)(A)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of
such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and''
after ``two-thirds of ''; and
(2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in
subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if ''.
(f) Amount Described.--Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(z) The amount described in this subsection is, for
months in each 12-month period beginning in December of 2003,
and each succeeding calendar year, the greater of--
``(1) $1200; or
``(2) the amount applicable for months in the preceding 12-
month period, increased by the cost-of-living adjustment for
such period determined for an annuity under section 8340 of
title 5, United States Code (without regard to any other
provision of law).''.
(g) Limitations on Reductions in Benefits.--Section 202 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402), as amended by subsection (f), is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(aa) For any month after December 2003, in no event shall
an individual receive a reduction in a benefit under
subsection (b)(4)(A), (c)(2)(A), (e)(7)(A), (f)(2)(A), or
(g)(4)(A) for the month that is more than the reduction in
such benefit that would have applied for such month under
such subsections as in effect on December 1, 2003.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect
to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the
Social Security Act for months after December 2003.
[[Page S2222]]
____________________