[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2458-S2495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. Daschle (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bond, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Talent, Mr. Dayton, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 385. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate methyl
tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply, to increase
production and use of renewable fuel, and to increase the Nation's
energy independence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environmental and Public Works.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, headlines in daily papers all across
the country underscore our economy's vulnerability to foreign oil.
Today, a new generation is learning what many Americans have known
since the 1970s--our economic security and our national security depend
on our energy security.
Today I, along with a number of my colleagues, am introducing the
Fuels Security Act of 2003.
This bill responds directly to our Nation's unhealthy reliance on
imported oil by establishing greater flexibility in our gasoline
regulations, and by tripling the use of domestic, renewable fuels over
the next 10 years.
This legislation is identical to the fuels agreement included in last
year's Senate-passed energy bill.
Based on the experience we have gained over the last seven years with
the reformulated gasoline program, the Fuel Security Act bill makes a
number of important changes in Federal law.
It bans MTBE in 4 years, authorizes funding to cleanup MTBE
contamination and fix leaking underground tanks, allows the most
polluted states to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and
provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act
to address air quality concerns.
It eliminates the oxygen requirement from the RFG program, a change
that is very important to states that are planning to remove MTBE from
their gasoline supplies in the near future.
To preserve the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from
the implementation of that requirement, the bill creates a renewable
fuels standard that will nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like
ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years.
Finally, the bill also provides special encouragement to biomass-
based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of
organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through
American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier has to
fight overseas to protect it. And no international cartel could turn
off the spigot.
For years, we talked about those benefits with a sense of
resignation. After all, these aren't new arguments, and yet there were
a lot of people who still saw ethanol as a boutique fuel, not a real
answer to our energy problems.
With this legislation, we intend to change that preception--and get
America moving toward energy independence.
The renewable fuels standard will be a win-win-win. It will help the
environment, it will help the rural economies which are hurting right
now, and it will help reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign
oil.
I believe we can make it law. During consideration of the Energy Bill
last summer, the Senate endorsed the Renewable Fuels Standard package
by a vote of 69 to 30.
Overall, this legislation is a careful balance of often disparate and
competing interests--and a compromise in the finest tradition of the
U.S. Senate.
Just look at some of the organizations whose active support is
helping to make this legislation possible: The Northeast States
Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the American Petroleum
Institute, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, the American Lung
Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels
Association, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers
Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association,
and the American Corn Growers Association.
[[Page S2459]]
That support across the political and ideological spectrum is
reflected within the Senate as well.
I particularly want to thank Senator Lugar. The seeds for this
comprehensive legislation were planted a few years ago when he and I
first introduced legislation to establish a renewable fuels standard
and provide flexibility in producing reformulated gasoline. Senator
Lugar's enthusiastic support gave this idea needed momentum and helped
lay the groundwork for agreement on this legislation last year.
In addition, Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous
credit for legislation they introduced last year to establish a very
ambitious renewable fuels standard, and for their work in promoting
this concept.
And there are many others--Senators Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck
Grassley, Byron Dorgan, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Max Baucus, Kit Bond,
George Voinovich, and others--who all deserve recognition for the
progress we have made on this issue.
Look at America's energy situation today: gasoline prices are high,
farm income is low and America is importing close to 60 percent of the
oil we use.
At the same time, our substantial appetite for energy continues to
grow every year. Over the next ten years, the United States is expected
to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time,
we hold only three percent of the known world oil reserves.
It has been said that ``we are all continually faced with a series of
great opportunities, brilliantly disguised as insolvable problems.''
Meeting our energy challenges is a difficult problem, but it is also
a great opportunity to demonstrate American strength, and American
ingenuity.
By increasing the use of renewable fuels, preserving clean air gains
and moving us toward energy independence, that is what I believe this
bill does.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleague,
Senator Daschle, in reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act. I am
thankful for this opportunity to remind my colleagues about the
importance of this legislation, and the benefits it brings to the
American people.
In the 107th Congress, the Senate voted in favor of a comprehensive
energy bill establishing a renewable fuels standard. This provision
would triple the amount of renewable fuel America consumes, displacing
nearly 600,000 barrels of oil per day. The bipartisan renewable fuels
agreement is a culmination of years of effort and enjoys strong support
from a broad spectrum. Regrettably, disagreements on other provisions
in the comprehensive energy legislation stranded the renewable fuels
provision in a House-Senate conference committee last year.
Senator Daschle and I first introduced a bill creating a renewable
fuels standard three years ago. Like that earlier bill, this bill
represents an important first step toward reducing our dependence on
foreign oil and improving our nation's energy security. At the same
time, this proposal goes far toward protecting the environment,
stimulating rural economic development, and increasing the flexibility
of the national fuel supply to reduce the impact of future price
spikes.
This bill will also forms the basis for a solution to the MTBE
problem that will be acceptable to all regions of the nation. MTBE, a
carcinogen that contaminates drinking water, is on its way out. This
proposal addresses public concerns regarding water pollution while
considering all of the environmental and energy security issues
involved. It requires the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE
within four years in order to protect public health and the
environment. And it establishes strict ``anti-backsliding'' provisions
to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE
is phased down and then phased out.
Those of us who recall the energy crises of the 1970s--and recognize
the current political instability in oil-rich regions around the
world--remain committed to the development of cheap, plentiful
renewable sources of energy. For years, tax incentives supporting
ethanol production have helped foster the creation of a strong domestic
ethanol industry. But more needs to be done to reduce the cost of
ethanol and make this plant-based commodity more competitive with
fossil fuels.
Energy and agriculture are closely tied topics that have been of
interest to me for several years. Since 1996, I have chaired five
hearings in the Agriculture Committee regarding energy security and
renewable fuels. These hearings were designed to inform the public that
our reliance on imported oil is growing, making the U.S. and the world
increasingly dependent on the unstable nations of the Persian Gulf and
the Caspian Sea. At the same time, the hearings convinced many in
Washington that a greater reliance on renewable fuels like ethanol
could have major energy security, air quality and rural development
benefits.
As we look to the future, major new scientific and technical
breakthroughs are making ethanol more economical. As a result of the
Biomass Research and Development Act, federal agencies are now
coordinating research activities focused on making ethanol out of
virtually any plant in the world. New biocatalysts--genetically
engineered enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria--are reducing the cost of so-
called cellulosic ethanol to the point where petroleum products may one
day face vigorous competition.
The legislation we are introducing today will build on these efforts
by offering an incentive to producers of cellulosic ethanol. Like our
previous proposals, this bill gives a special credit to users of
cellulosic ethanol for the purpose of fulfilling requirements of the
renewable fuels standard.
This legislation will go far toward strengthening our national
security, improving our rural communities, protecting our natural
environment and, ultimately, substituting carbohydrates for
hydrocarbons.
Thank you for joining me in supporting ethanol, a domestic form of
clean, renewable energy.
Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak
briefly about an important, comprehensive fuels bill that I will
introduce today, along with Senators Daschle, Lugar, Johnson,
Voinovich, Grassley, and others. This bill aims to enhance air and
water quality, reduce supply and distribution challengers in the
gasoline market, and increase energy security by expanding the use of
clean, domestically produced renewable fuels.
Specifically, our bill follows the advice of the EPA's Blue Ribbon
Panel on Oxygenates by repealing the Federal oxygenate mandate and
phasing out the use of MTBE nationwide. It also contains a reasonable
Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, which would gradually increase the
nation's use of renewable fuel to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. All
of this while protecting the environmental gains already made by the
reformulated gasoline program.
This legislation mirrors the bipartisan fuels agreement in last
year's Senate energy bill, which gained the votes of 69 Senators. This
year, we have worked to build an even broader, bipartisan coalition of
cosponsors.
Much has happened since the Senate passed its energy bill last year.
The renewable fuels industry has expanded considerably to meet growing
demand. The ethanol industry opened 12 new plants last year, with 10
additional plants now under construction. Sixteen of these new plants
are farmer-owned co-operatives. By the end of 2003, annual ethanol
production capacity is expected to exceed 3 billion gallons. In
December the ethanol industry wrapped up a record year--2.13 billion
gallons in 2002, up by more than 20 percent over 2001.
Also, ChevronTexaco announced last month that it will switch from
blending MTBE to blending ethanol in the southern California market--
making Chevron the last of the large California refiners to make the
switch to ethanol. This means that more than 80 percent of California's
federally-reformulated gasoline will be blended with ethanol by May
2003.
We should not forget that biodiesel, made primarily from soybeans and
still a developing fuel technology, has grown enough that it is now
used in more than 200 State and Federal automobile fleets--using a 20-
percent blend or higher.
Today, 16 States have already banned MTBE. With State MTBE bans will
come increased challenges to fuel distribution and supply. The national
phase-down of MTBE proposed in this bill will help us meet these
challenges.
[[Page S2460]]
And a national Renewable Fuels Standard with a credit and trading
program will ensure that renewable fuels are used where they make the
most sense. In fact, according to a recent analysis, enacting this
fuels bill would even reduce refiner costs, .2 cents, per gallon
compared to current law.
The Standard in our legislation is a fair and workable compromise new
crafted nearly a year ago--after months of work the American Petroleum
Institute, the environmental community, the Northeast air directors,
agricultural groups, DOE, EPA and others. Senator Daschle and I helped
facilitate those talks. We crafted the language of last year's fuels
agreement--the same language in this bill.
This is not a per-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level
of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult.
Our Nation needs a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio.
Today, less than one percent of America's transportation fuel comes
from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use
would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation
fuel supply--tripling the amount of renewable fuel we now use.
Today, America imports nearly sixty percent of the crude oil it
consumes. This amount is estimated to climb to 70 percent by 2002.
Almost a fourth of America's oil imports come from the Persian Gulf.
Last year, the United States imported nearly half-a-million barrels of
oil a day from Iraq. Overall, petroleum imports cost the United States
more than $100 billion a year--around 25 percent of our trade deficit.
This country consumers more than 300 billion gallons of crude oil a
year--of that, 165 billion gallons is refined into gasoline and diesel.
Our legislation says that by 2012, not less then 5 billion gallons of
that 165 billion gallons shall come from renewable sources. By enacting
this legislation, we would replace 66 billion gallons of foreign crude
oil by 2012; reduce foreign oil purchases by $34 billion; create more
than 200,000 jobs nationwide; and boost U.S. farm income by more than
$6 billion a year.
As the new Congress prepares to resume deliberations on a new
national energy plan, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider this
legislation--which will assist our efforts to modernize the Nation's
transportation fuel system and address the environmental, energy and
security concerns for today and tomorrow.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senator Daschle, as well as Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, Senator
Johnson and others in introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation
today.
This bill is extremely important--from an environmental perspective
and from an energy security perspective.
This bill increase the use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline.
That means that we will be increasing the use of renewable sources in
the fuel that we pump into our gas tanks. Transportation is the sector
that uses the greatest amount of imported oil. By replacing some of the
petroleum products in gasoline, we will help reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. The White House recognizes that: ``America imports 55
percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 68 percent
by 2025. Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline, and they
are the main reason America imports so much oil. Two-thirds of the 20
million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for
transportation.''
Let me point out the top countries from whom we import crude oil: our
top supplier is Saudi Arabia. Almost one-third of our oil comes from
the Middle East--and Iraq is our fifth largest supplier. Venezuela is
our fourth largest supplier. Their country has been rocked by crisis
for the last couple of years. So, it is in our best interest to reduce
the amount of oil we import from these nations.
This bill is also important because it will phase-out MTBE
nationally. MTBE has been shown to contaminate water supplies and to
have the ability to cause potentially harmful side effects. This is
important. We have attempted to do this here in Congress for several
years. We should not be exposing ourselves and our children to such
harmful contaminants. Now is the time to act to remove this from our
gasoline and from our water supplies. No more delays. I urge may
colleagues to work with me to move this important legislation in a
timely manner.
Today, ethanol reduces the demand for oil and MTBE imports by 98,000
barrels per day. To me, this just makes good sense: take starch from
corn or wheat, break it down into simple sugars, then ferment it to
produce ethanol that can be used for energy. The byproducts can be
used, too.
renewable fuels provision in the bill
The renewable fuels provision has been carefully negotiated over a
period of months and years. Now, 20 groups, including the Nation Corn
Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Farm Bureau
Federation, and the National Farmers Union, have sent a letter
expressing their support for this legislation. 1.8 billion gallons of
pure ethanol are currently produced each year. This provision would add
3.2 billion new gallons over a period of years for a total of 5 billion
gallons by 2012. And, this provision will ensure that the ethanol
industry continues to grow.
This translates to a new market for 1.19 billion bushels of corn and
other agricultural products. This also means new opportunities for
farmers to invest in value-added processing of a product they're
already growing. While we are seeing mergers and acquisitions in the
petroleum and other industries, the ethanol industry is diversifying,
as farmers invest in local processing.
north dakota
I am excited about the wide range of opportunities ethanol presents.
One unique opportunity is being created in my home state of North
Dakota. The aerospace program at the University of North Dakota and the
Environment and Energy Research Center (EERC) are researching the
potential for using ethanol as aviation fuel.
Aviation fuel is the last fuel in the U.S. that still contains lead.
UND is now teaming up with South Dakota State University and the
Federal Aviation Administration on a program to get ethanol approved
and certified to help replace this lead-based aviation fuel.
And we are working on building E85 (blended ethanol fuel) stations in
North Dakota.
economic benefits
According to some estimates, the ethanol industry is responsible for
more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3
billion in increased household income annually, and more than $12.6
billion over the next five years.
During the past year, industry has built 12 new facilities. Ten new
facilities are under construction, and dozens more are in the planning
stages. The ethanol industry adds--directly and indirectly--more than
than $6 billion to our economy each year.
I am excited by the opportunities this sector presents for my State,
the region, and the entire Nation.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am pleased that we are reintroducing
renewable fuels legislation and that we are taking time today to talk
about the benefits and importance of this bill.
I want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Senator Daschle
and also Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who was on the floor to
speak to this issue but was called away for another critical
responsibility and will not be able to be in the Chamber this morning.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the nation's energy
situation. The increasing volatility in gasoline and diesel prices, the
growing tension in the world from the terrorist attacks, and the
possibility of war with Iraq have affected all of us. The more we
depend on oil from the Middle East, the more our stability is
inextricably tied to governments and factions in that region. There is
a critical need for finding new sources of energy that will move the
country away from dependence of a natural resource available in
increasingly volatile regions of the world. Dependence on foreign oil
in the unstable Middle East and South America makes us less stable. The
use of domestic, clean, renewable energy sources can increase our
energy security and increase the nation's security. It must be a
critical part of our nation's energy strategy.
To this end, last year I introduced a bill with Sen. Chuck Hagel of
Nebraska that would ensure future
[[Page S2461]]
growth for ethanol and biodiesel. The bill would create a new,
renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in
the United States. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive energy
bill which included the framework of our legislation. Today, ethanol
and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel
in the U.S. This consensus language would require that five billion
gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012--
nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production.
The consensus language was agreed to last year after productive
negotiations between the renewable fuels industry, farmers' groups, the
oil industry and environmentalists. Unlike many of the disputes during
consideration of the energy bill last year, this issue had a relatively
wide range of agreement. The basis for this agreement is still viable,
and it is under this framework that we are reintroducing the bill
today.
The people of South Dakota and the neighboring states understand the
benefits of ethanol to the economies of rural communities. Increased
renewable fuel production lowers our dependence upon foreign oil,
strengthens energy security, increases farm income and creates jobs.
The growth of farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota demonstrates
the hard work and commitment needed to serve a growing market for clean
domestic fuels.
Based on current projections, construction of new plants will
generate $900 million in capital investment and tens of thousands of
construction jobs to rural communities. For corn farmers, the price of
corn would rise 20-30 cents per bushel.
Combine this with the provisions of the bill and the potential
economic impact for rural states is tremendous. In South Dakota, seven
ethanol plants are operating to produce approximately 156 million
gallons per year. Three other ethanol projects are under construction,
with a combined capacity to produce an additional 180 million gallons
of ethanol annually. With the enactment of a renewable fuels standard,
the production in South Dakota now could grow substantially, with at
least 5000 farmers owning ethanol plants and producing over 500 million
gallons of ethanol per year.
An important but under-emphasized fuel is biodiesel, which is chiefly
produced from excess soybean oil. Soybean prices are hovering near
historic lows. Biodiesel production is small but has been growing
steadily. The renewable fuels standard would greatly increase the
prospects for biodiesel production, benefitting soybean farmers from
South Dakota and other states.
While the energy bill was not enacted last year, two-thirds of the
Senate voted against amendments that would have weakened or eliminated
the renewable fuels provision. For the first time in recent memory,
Congress's actions reflect the knowledge that value-added agriculture
and ethanol production are critical to the nation's energy needs and to
the future of family-farm agriculture and rural America. The prospects
for farmers in South Dakota and other rural states have brightened
considerably. Moreover, we have a unique opportunity to help reduce our
use of foreign oil and make our nation more stable. I am pleased that
we are reintroducing the bill and urge its swift passage.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank you for the
opportunity to speak about what is clearly a bipartisan issue. I would
like to add to what my colleague from Minnesota said about the Fuels
Security Act offered by Senators Daschle and Lugar on a bipartisan
basis.
I am here today to support the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This
important renewable fuels legislation is one of the pillars for
economic development for rural--America one segment of the population
that has lagged behind during the economic surge of the 1990's and is
suffering under the combined effects of the current economic slowdown
and a two-year devastating drought which I had the audacity to name
``Drought David.''
This legislation is important for rural America. Last year, we
completed the farm bill--the first part of the economic revitalization
plan for rural America. For the last several months, we have been
struggling over the most important short-term economic stimulus plan
for rural America--comprehensive drought assistance. Though I believe
what the Senate passed and what we hear will be included in the omnibus
is insufficient to adequately compensate for the drought, it might
provide some initial assistance to farmers and ranchers.
In addition to the farm bill and disaster assistance, I believe we
need to craft a comprehensive rural development plan that will spur
investment in agri-business and promote economic activity in the
agriculture center. We need to consider opening new markets like Cuba--
to ensure American products can be sold and farmers and ranchers can
earn a living.
The Fuels Security Act of 2003, is the latest piece of the puzzle.
It is clear that use of ethanol, as part of a renewable fuels
standard is a win-win-win situation: a win for farmers, a win for
consumers, and a win for the environment. That is why I rise as an
original co-sponsor and strong supporter this renewable fuels
legislation.
If passed, the Fuels Security Act will establish a 2.3 billion gallon
renewable fuels standard in 2004, growing every year until it reaches 5
billion gallons by 2012. There are many benefits to this legislation.
It will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next decade;
reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; increase new investment in
rural communities by more than $5.3 billion; boost the demand for feed
grains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion bushels over the next
decade; create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy;
and it will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over
the next decade
It is quite apparent that increased use of ethanol will do much to
boost a struggling U.S. agriculture economy, and will help establish a
more sound national energy policy.
The greater production of ethanol will also be beneficial to the
environment. Studies show ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbons by 20 percent and particulates by 40 percent in 1990
and newer vehicles. In 2001 ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions by
3.6 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 520,000 vehicles
from the road.
A choice for ethanol is a choice for America, and its energy
consumers, its farmers, and its environment.
Enactment of the Fuel Security Act will help us to reverse our 100-
year-old near total reliance on fossil fuels; a more pressing concern
than ever given the possibility of military conflict in the Mid East
and the continuing economic turmoil in Venezuela.
It was recently reported we are currently exporting about 80,000
gallons of fuel to Venezuela right now to help in their shortfall
because of the turmoil in that part of our world.
I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished in this
area. Within the State of Nebraska, during the period from 1991 to
2001, seven ethanol plants were constructed and several of these
facilities were expanded more than once during the decade.
Specific benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska include: $1.15
billion in new capital investment in ethanol processing plants. They
include 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and 5,115
induced jobs directly related to plant construction, operation, and
maintenance. The permanent jobs alone generate an annual payroll of $44
million. And more than 210 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is
processed at the plants annually. These economic benefits and others
have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion,
employment increases, and additional capital investment.
If each State produces 10 percent of its own domestic, renewable
fuel, as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner away from
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
And it is possible because ethanol and biodiesel can be made from
biomass from other than corn or sorghum or other row crops. It can be
produced from garbage. It can be produced from switch grass and all
kinds of other biomass.
When you take a hard look at the facts, you will see that this
legislation is nothing but beneficial for America. The Fuels Security
Act is balanced,
[[Page S2462]]
comprehensive, and is the result of the dedication of so many,
especially Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar.
So now I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities
for the technologies that will put our Nation and the world's
transportation fuels on solid, sustainable, and environmentally
enhancing ground. We owe it to our country now--and to future
generations--to pass this legislation without any further delay.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, if I may, in contrast to the very
partisan tone of the Estrada filibuster and this partisan divide that
is stopping us from moving forward, I want to spend a few minutes
talking about an issue in which we come together and perhaps which
should be a model.
I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Hagel and
minority leader Daschle, as an original cosponsor of this landmark
renewable fuels legislation.
Senator Daschle is from our neighboring State. We have mutual
interests. We understand the needs of our farmers.
We are looking at working together, which I think is such a good
thing.
The Minnesota AgriGrowth Council points out renewable fuels like
ethanol and biodiesel promote the 3 E's: economic development,
environmental protection, and energy independence.
Let me talk briefly about the economic development benefit first. I
ran for the Senate on jobs. The best welfare program is a job. The best
housing program is a job--creating jobs--and economic development. That
is what mayors do. That is what they understand is important to moms
and dads. We get results. There were 18,000 more jobs in St. Paul when
I left than when I began.
The legislation we introduce today means economic development--it
means jobs, revitalization, and new businesses--particularly for rural
Minnesota.
Minnesota is a leader in renewable fuels. Not only do the people of
my State make Minnesota the top 10 among States of nearly every
agriculture commodity that can be produced in our climate, but
Minnesota leads the way in renewable fuels, and I am proud of that.
Today, Minnesota has 14 ethanol plants in production--more than any
other State in the Nation. Preliminary planning is underway for at
least a couple of biodiesel production facilities in my State as well.
So the importance of this legislation to my State and to the health of
the people in my State and to the lives of our farmers and their
economic opportunity is clear.
But, let's take a look nationally to see what every American has to
gain through this legislation. According to at least one economic
analysis, the renewable fuels standard we propose today would, over the
next decade:
Reduce America's trade deficit by more than $34 billion;
increase America's Gross Domestic Product by $156 billion;
create more than 214,000 jobs throughout the entire economy,
including places important to me like Little Falls and Winnebago, MN;
and
increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion per year.
That the renewable fuels standard legislation we introduce today
promotes the first ``E'' of the 3 ``Es''--economic development--is
evident.
The second ``E'' I want to talk a little about is energy
independence.
As a member of both the Governmental Affairs Committee and the
Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity, in my first
month in the Senate, to hear from a number of experts on homeland
security and on conditions around the world that affect our security.
And, with this experience as a backdrop, I can say I am not comfortable
at all with America's level of reliance on oil imports--now at 56
percent of our supply, and expected to be about 70 percent by 2020
unless something is done to turn things around.
Back on September 19, 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, and former
National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane all wrote the Senate on this
very issue, stating:
One of the critical actions that must be taken now is to
advance America's energy security through transportation
fuels like ethanol [and] slow the dollars to the Middle East,
where too many of those dollars have been used to buy weapon
and fund terrorist activities.
The legislation we offer today takes to heart the admonition of
Director Woolsey, Admiral Moorer, and Mr. McFarlane by advancing
renewable fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
And, finally, but not least, is the ``E'' for environmental
protection that got the whole reformulated gasoline ball rolling in the
first place.
Ethanol is an important tool for improving air quality in America's
cities by reducing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOX,
toxics, and particulates.
Proof of ethanol's clear air benefits was seen in Chicago last year
where exclusive use of ethanol reformulated gasoline helped the city
attain federal ozone standards--the only area under such standards to
see this kind of improvement.
What is more, ethanol continues to be the only liquid transportation
fuel that can help to reduce global warming. In 2002 alone, ethanol use
in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million
tons--the equivalent of removing more than 636,000 vehicles from the
road.
These are the 3 ``Es''; economic development, energy independence,
and environmental protection--all three worthy objectives furthered by
the legislation we offer today.
Naturally, there are places here and there where this bill can and
should be improved, and we can work on it. But, this is a good starting
place. It is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Sarbanes, and
Mr. Akaka):
S. 386. A bill to establish a grant program to enhance the financial
and retirement literacy of mid-life and older Americans and to reduce
financial abuse and fraud among such Americans, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators
Fitzgerald, Sarbanes, and Akaka to introduce the Education for
Retirement Security Act of 2003. This bill will provide access to badly
needed financial and retirement education for millions of mid-life and
older Americans whose retirement security is at stake.
Improving financial literacy has been a top priority for me in
Congress. I believe it is a critical and complex task for Americans of
all ages, but it is especially crucial for Americans as they approach
retirement. In fact, low levels of savings and high levels of personal
and real estate debt are serious problems for many households nearing
retirement. Although today's older Americans are generally thought to
be doing well, nearly one-out-of-five, 18 percent, were living below
125 percent of the poverty line in 1995, which was a year of tremendous
economic prosperity in our Nation. And, only 53 percent of working
Americans have any form of pension coverage. In addition, financial
exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older
individuals, and this population comprises more than one-half of all
telemarketing victims in the United States.
While education along cannot solve our Nation's retirement woes,
financial education is vital to enabling individuals to avoid scams and
bad investment, mortgage, and pension decisions, and to ensuring that
they have access to the tools they need to make sound financial
decisions and prepare appropriately for a secure future. Indeed, the
more limited time frame that mid-life and older Americans have in which
to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from
bad economic choices, and to benefit from more informed financial
practices makes this education all the more critical. Financial
literacy is also particularly important for older women, who are more
likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon Social Security.
The Education for Retirement Security act would create a competitive
grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies
on aging and nonprofit community based organizations to provide
financial education programs to mid-life and older Americans. The goal
of these programs is to enhance these individuals' financial and
retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial
[[Page S2463]]
abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud.
My legislation also authorizes the creation of a national technical
assistance program that would designate at least one national nonprofit
organization that has substantial experience in the field of financial
education to provide training and make available instructional
materials and information that promotes financial education.
Over the next thirty years, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and
older is expected to double, from 35 million to nearly 75 million.
Ensuring that these individuals are better prepared for retirement and
are more informed about the economic decisions they face during
retirement will have an important impact on the long term economic and
social well-being of our Nation.
I hope that as the Senate moves to address pension reform, my
colleagues will work to address the issues outlined in this
legislation. The recent rash of corporate and accounting scandals and
the declining stock market have jeopardized the retirement savings of
millions of Americans, making the need for financial literacy even more
clear.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge the expertise and assistance
that AARP, the Older Women's League, OWL, and the Women's Institute for
a Secure Economic Retirement, WISER, offered to me in drafting this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 386
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Education for Retirement
Security Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Improving financial literacy is a critical and complex
task for Americans of all ages.
(2) Low levels of savings and high levels of personal and
real estate debt are serious problems for many households
nearing retirement.
(3) Only 53 percent of working Americans have any form of
pension coverage. Three out of four women aged 65 or over
receive no income from employer-provided pensions.
(4) The more limited timeframe that mid-life and older
individuals and families have to assess the realities of
their individual circumstances, to recover from counter-
productive choices and decisionmaking processes, and to
benefit from more informed financial practices, has immediate
impact and near term consequences for Americans nearing or of
retirement age.
(5) Research indicates that there are now 4 basic sources
of retirement income security. Those sources are social
security benefits, pensions and savings, healthcare insurance
coverage, and, for an increasing number of older individuals,
necessary earnings from working during one's ``retirement''
years.
(6) The $5,000,000,000,000 loss in stock market equity
values since 2000 has had a significantly negative effect on
mid-life and older individuals and on their pension plans and
retirement accounts, affecting both individuals with plans to
retire and those who are already in retirement.
(7) Although today's older individuals are generally
thought to be doing well, nearly \1/4\ (24 percent) of such
individuals had annual incomes of less than 14,000 (or 150
percent of the Federal poverty line) between 1998 and 2000.
(8) Over the next 30 years, the number of older individuals
in the United States is expected to double, from 35,000,000
to nearly 75,000,000, and long-term care costs are expected
to skyrocket.
(9) Financial exploitation is the largest single category
of abuse against older individuals and this population
comprises more than \1/2\ of all telemarketing victims in the
United States.
(10) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Identity Theft Data
Clearinghouse has reported that incidents of identity theft
targeting individuals over the age of 60 increased from 1,821
victims in 2000 to 5,802 victims in 2001, a threefold
increase.
SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE FINANCIAL AND RETIREMENT
LITERACY AND REDUCE FINANCIAL ABUSE AND FRAUD
AMONG MID-LIFE AND OLDER AMERICANS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award grants
to eligible entities to provide financial education programs
to mid-life and older individuals who reside in local
communities in order to--
(1) enhance financial and retirement knowledge among such
individuals; and
(2) reduce financial abuse and fraud, including
telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud, among such
individuals.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such entity is--
(1) a State agency or area agency on aging; or
(2) a nonprofit organization with a proven record of
providing--
(A) services to mid-life and older individuals;
(B) consumer awareness programs; or
(C) supportive services to low-income families.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary in
such form and containing such information as the Secretary
may require, including a plan for continuing the programs
provided with grant funds under this section after the grant
expires.
(d) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--A recipient of a
grant under this section may not use more than 4 percent of
the total amount of the grant in each fiscal year for the
administrative costs of carrying out the programs provided
with grant funds under this section.
(e) Evaluation and Report.--
(1) Establishment of performance measures.--The Secretary
shall develop measures to evaluate the programs provided with
grant funds under this section.
(2) Evaluation according to performance measures.--Applying
the performance measures developed under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall evaluate the programs provided with grant
funds under this section in order to--
(A) judge the performance and effectiveness of such
programs;
(B) identify which programs represent the best practices of
entities developing such programs for mid-life and older
individuals; and
(C) identify which programs may be replicated.
(3) Annual reports.--For each fiscal year in which a grant
is awarded under this section, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress containing a description of the status of
the grant program under this section, a description of the
programs provided with grant funds under this section, and
the results of the evaluation of such programs under
paragraph (2).
SEC. 4. NATIONAL TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award a
grant to 1 or more eligible entities to--
(1) create and make available instructional materials and
information that promote financial education; and
(2) provide training and other related assistance regarding
the establishment of financial education programs to eligible
entities awarded a grant under section 3.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such entity is a national
nonprofit organization with substantial experience in the
field of financial education.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary in
such form and containing such information as the Secretary
may require.
(d) Basis and Term.--The Secretary shall award a grant
under this section on a competitive, merit basis for a term
of 5 years.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Financial education.--The term ``financial education''
means education that promotes an understanding of consumer,
economic, and personal finance concepts, including saving for
retirement, long-term care, and estate planning and education
on predatory lending and financial abuse schemes.
(2) Mid-life individual.--The term ``mid-life individual''
means an individual aged 45 to 64 years.
(3) Older individual.--The term ``older individual'' means
an individual aged 65 or older.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this Act, $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2004 through 2008.
(b) Limitation on Funds for Evaluation and Report.--The
Secretary may not use more than $200,000 of the amounts
appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to
carry out section 3(e).
(c) Limitation on Funds for Training and Technical
Assistance.--The Secretary may not use less than 5 percent or
more than 10 percent of amounts appropriated under subsection
(a) for each fiscal year to carry out section 4.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Breaux,
Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Murray,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms.
Collins):
S. 387. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
extend the eligibility periods for geriatric graduate medical
education, to permit the expansion of medical residency training
programs in geriatric medicine, to provide for reimbursement of care
coordination and assessment services
[[Page S2464]]
provided under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Geriatric Care Act of 2003, a bill to increase the number of
geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare
reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this
effort today by Senators Reid, Snowe, Breaux, Graham, Bingaman,
Landrieu, Murray, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Reed, Kennedy, and Collins.
Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change
as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them.
As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on
Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and
Medicare for the inevitable ``aging of America.'' By improving access
to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2003 takes an important
first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century.
By the year 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65 and older. The
elderly will soon represent one-fifth of the United States population,
the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our
Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our
population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies
ahead.
Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians
who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably
brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risks of disease
and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke,
diabetes and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age.
The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of
physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are
physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal
medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics.
Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for
our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and
preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life
by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and
costly trips to the hospital or other institutions.
Geriatricians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of
prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on
prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how,
when, and in what dosages to prescribe medicines for seniors. That's
because frequently, older patients respond to medications in different
ways than younger patients.
In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience
adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for
Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17
percent of all hospitalizations of seniors annually.
Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide
better health care for our seniors, but will also save costs to
Medicare in the long term by eliminating more costly medical care in
hospitals and nursing homes.
Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our
health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic
changes.
Yet today, there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the
United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and
fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in
geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools
in the country, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, UAMS,
being one of them, has a Department of Geriatrics. This is incredible
considering that all 125 medical schools in our country have
departments of pediatrics.
As if that weren't alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is
expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact,
most of these doctors will retire just as the Baby Boomer generation
becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide
incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country.
Unfortunately, there are barriers preventing physicians from entering
geriatrics. These include insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the
provision of geriatric care, inadequate training dollars, and too few
positions for geriatricians.
Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus
their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient
Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties,
geriatricians depend almost entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent
MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major
stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians.
Currently, the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it
is for regular physicians. But the services geriatricians provide are
fundamentally different.
Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest
the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex
needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple
medications make medical decision-making more complex and time
consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more
complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and
caregivers in the process.
We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the
importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing
health care for seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these
trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the
realities of senior health care.
The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these
shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin
foundations of geriatric practice--geriatric assessment and care
coordination.
The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for
seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications
effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to
provide necessary support for caregivers.
The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by
the Graduate Medical Education cap established by the 1997 Balanced
Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or
reduced their geriatric training programs.
The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing for
additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals
to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help
increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs.
Finally, the Geriatric Care Act contains a new provision that ensures
Graduate Medical Education payments for the second year of geriatric
fellowship training. A one-year fellowship may be adequate for training
clinical geriatricans but a two-year fellowship is essential for
training academic geriatricans who will teach geriatrics to primary
care and specialty physicians-in-training. Academic geriatricians are
critical in preparing the next generation of doctors to care for our
growing elderly population.
My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of
population 65 years and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many
ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the
United States will look like in the near future.
We are blessed in Arkansas to have the Donald W. Reynolds Department
of Geriatrics and the Center on Aging at the University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences. It is my hope that the Geriatric Care Act will make
it easier for our medical school and others across the country to train
more physicians in geriatrics.
As our parents, grandparents, friends, and loved ones cope with the
challenges that aging brings, we must ensure that physicians skilled in
caring for their special needs are there to help them. I ask my
colleagues to join me in support of this effort to modernize Medicare
to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's seniors.
I ask unanimous consent that following my statement there be a
printed list of organizations that support the Geriatric Care Act of
2003.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Organizations Supporting the Geriatric Care Act of 2003
Alzheimer's Association.
[[Page S2465]]
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal
Medicine.
American Geriatrics Society.
Association of Professors of Medicine.
Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine.
Association of Subspecialty Professors.
Catholic Health Association.
International Longevity Center--USA.
National Chronic Care Consortium.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
National Council on the Aging.
National PACE Association.
National Family Caregivers Association.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 388. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the dependent car tax credit, to accelerate the child tax credit, and
to promote dependent care assistance programs; to the Committee on
Finance.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 389. A bill to increase the supply of quality child care; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my
colleagues to introduce two pieces of legislation to help meet the
child care challenges facing families around the Nation. These bills
entitled the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care
Act'', or the ABC's Act.
Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both
parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong.
Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the
most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country.
It is estimated that quality child care can cost as much or more than
college tuition in some areas.
The ``Caring for Children Act'' and `A Boost for Child Care Act''
take the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible
approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without
increased government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation
builds into the existing network adding more government intervention or
mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working
parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation
will help to increase the supply of quality child care.
First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increased
affordability of child care, the ABC's Act expends the Dependent Care
Tax Credit by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families
become eligible for the maximum tax credit. This legislation also
raises the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can
deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the Dependent Care Tax Credit
more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs.
Additionally, the ABC's Act accelerates and makes permanent the child
tax credit at $1,000 for qualifying taxpayers in order to further ease
the financial burden on families.
Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses
that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we
must also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain
at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, this legislation
extends eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with
a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families
and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In
order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet
our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income
wage earners.
The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play
a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working
parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the
resources required to start up and support a child care center. This
legislation includes a short-term flexible grant program to encourage
small businesses to work together to provide child care services for
employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will
sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses
will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training
scholarships, or other related activities. Business must continue to
meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to
match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into
the future.
Parental access to child care information and technical assistance to
child care providers both play a strong role in increasing the supply
of quality child care. The Caring for Children Act includes a grant
program to allow entities to develop and operate technology-based child
care training infrastructures to enable child care providers to receive
the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of
child care. The legislation also provides funds for the Department of
Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate state of the art
information on topics related to child care health and safety, as well
as early childhood development. This information could be distributed
through brochures, the internet, a toll-free information hotline, or
resource and referral organizations.
Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While
parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and
family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options
and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look
forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Caring for Children
Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 388
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 ``A Boost for Child Care
Act''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.
(a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by
Taxpayer Status.--Paragraph (2) of section 21(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for
expenses for household and dependent care services necessary
for gainful employment) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means 50
percent reduced (but not below zero) by 1 percentage point
for each $1,500, or fraction thereof, by which the taxpayer's
adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds
$30,000.''.
(b) Minimum Credit Allowed for Stay-at-Home Parents.--
Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to special rules) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with 1 or more qualifying individuals described in subsection
(b)(1)(A) under the age of 4 at any time during the taxable
year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have employment-
related expenses with respect to such qualifying individuals
in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(A) the amount of employment-related expenses incurred
for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph), or
``(B) $150 for each month in such taxable year during which
such qualifying individual is under the age of 4.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003.
SEC. 3. ACCELERATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit)
is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the
taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Repeal of Amendment.--Section 201(a) of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is repealed.
(2) Repeal of Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of
provisions of such Act) shall not apply to section 201 (other
than subsection (a) of such section) of such Act.
SEC. 4. PROMOTION OF DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish a
program to promote awareness of the use of dependent care
assistance programs (as described in section 129(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) by employers.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to
[[Page S2466]]
carry out the program under subsection (a) $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
____
S. 389
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 ``Caring for Children Act''.
TITLE I--DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT QUALITY CHILD CARE
SEC. 101. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Collection and Dissemination of Information.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, directly or
through a contract awarded on a competitive basis to a
qualified entity, collect and disseminate--
(1) information concerning health and safety in various
child care settings that would assist in--
(A) the provision of safe and healthful environments by
child care providers; and
(B) the evaluation of child care providers by parents; and
(2) relevant findings in the field of early childhood
learning and development.
(b) Information and Findings To Be Generally Available.--
(1) Secretarial responsibility.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall make the information and findings
described in subsection (a) generally available to States,
units of local governments, private nonprofit child care
organizations (including resource and referral agencies),
employers, child care providers, and parents.
(2) Definition of generally available.--In paragraph (1),
the term ``generally available'' means that the information
and findings shall be distributed through resources that are
used by, and available to, the public, including such
resources as brochures, Internet web sites, toll-free
telephone information lines, and public and private resource
and referral organizations.
SEC. 102. GRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE TRAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Authority To Award Grants.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall award grants to eligible entities to
develop distance learning child care training technology
infrastructures and to develop model technology-based
training courses for child care providers and child care
workers, to be provided through distance learning programs
made available through the infrastructure. The Secretary
shall, to the maximum extent possible, ensure that such
grants are awarded in those regions of the United States with
the fewest training opportunities for child care providers.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a), an entity shall--
(1) develop the technological and logistical aspects of the
infrastructure described in this section and have the
capability of implementing and maintaining the
infrastructure;
(2) to the maximum extent possible, develop partnerships
with secondary schools, institutions of higher education,
State and local government agencies, and private child care
organizations for the purpose of sharing equipment, technical
assistance, and other technological resources, including--
(A) developing sites from which individuals may access the
training;
(B) converting standard child care training courses to
programs for distance learning; and
(C) promoting ongoing networking among program
participants; and
(3) develop a mechanism for participants to--
(A) evaluate the effectiveness of the infrastructure,
including the availability and affordability of the
infrastructure, and the training offered through the
infrastructure; and
(B) make recommendations for improvements to the
infrastructure.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may require, and that includes--
(1) a description of the partnership organizations through
which the distance learning programs will be made available;
(2) the capacity of the infrastructure in terms of the
number and type of distance learning programs that will be
made available;
(3) the expected number of individuals to participate in
the distance learning programs; and
(4) such additional information as the Secretary may
require.
(d) Limitation On Fees.--No entity receiving a grant under
this section may collect fees from an individual for
participation in a distance learning program funded in whole
or in part under this section that exceed the pro rata share
of the amount expended by the entity to provide materials for
the program and to develop, implement, and maintain the
infrastructure (minus the amount of the grant awarded under
this section).
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a child care provider to subscribe to
or complete a distance learning program made available under
this section.
SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
TITLE II--REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF QUALITY CHILD
CARE
SEC. 201. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a program to award grants to States, on a
competitive basis, to assist States in providing funds to
encourage the establishment and operation of employer
operated child care programs.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including an assurance that the funds required under
subsection (e) will be provided.
(c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of a grant to a State under this section based on the
population of the State as compared to the population of all
States receiving grants under this section.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a
grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to
small businesses located in the State to enable the small
businesses to establish and operate child care programs. Such
assistance may include--
(A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child
care program;
(B) assistance for the startup costs related to a child
care program;
(C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
(D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
(E) the provision of services to care for sick children or
to provide care to school aged children;
(F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and
referral or local health departments;
(G) assistance for care for children with disabilities; or
(H) assistance for any other activity determined
appropriate by the State.
(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance from
a State under this section, a small business shall prepare
and submit to the State an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the State may
require.
(3) Preference.--
(A) In general.--In providing assistance under this
section, a State shall give priority to applicants that
desire to form a consortium to provide child care in a
geographic area within the State where such care is not
generally available or accessible.
(B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities that may
include businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations,
local governments, or other appropriate entities.
(4) Limitation.--With respect to grant funds received under
this section, a State may not provide in excess of $100,000
in assistance from such funds to any single applicant.
(e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a State shall provide assurances to
the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred
by an entity receiving assistance in carrying out activities
under this section, the entity will make available (directly
or through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions to such costs in an amount equal to--
(1) for the first fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such costs ($1
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant);
(2) for the second fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of such costs
($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under
the grant); and
(3) for the third fiscal year in which the entity receives
such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such costs ($3
for each $1 of assistance provided to the entity under the
grant).
(f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under a grant awarded under this section a child
care provider shall comply with all applicable State and
local licensing and regulatory requirements and all
applicable health and safety standards in effect in the
State.
(g) Administration.--
(1) State responsibility.--A State shall have
responsibility for administering a grant awarded for the
State under this section and for monitoring entities that
receive assistance under such grant.
(2) Audits.--A State shall require each entity receiving
assistance under the grant awarded under this section to
conduct an annual audit with respect to the activities of the
entity. Such audits shall be submitted to the State.
(3) Misuse of funds.--
(A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit
or otherwise, that an entity receiving assistance under a
grant awarded under this section has misused the assistance,
the State shall notify the Secretary of the misuse. The
Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek from such an
entity the repayment of an amount equal to the amount of
any such misused assistance plus interest.
[[Page S2467]]
(B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation
provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments
under this paragraph.
(h) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) 2-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary first awards grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
(i) the capacity of entities to meet the child care needs
of communities within States;
(ii) the kinds of partnerships that are being formed with
respect to child care at the local level to carry out
programs funded under this section; and
(iii) who is using the programs funded under this section
and the income levels of such individuals.
(B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date on
which the Secretary first awards grants under this section,
the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report on the results of the study
conducted in accordance with subparagraph (A).
(2) 4-year study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on
which the Secretary first awards grants under this section,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number
of child care facilities funded through entities that
received assistance through a grant awarded under this
section that remain in operation and the extent to which such
facilities are meeting the child care needs of the
individuals served by such facilities.
(B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date on
which the Secretary first awards grants under this section,
the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report on the results of the study
conducted in accordance with subparagraph (A).
(i) Definition.--In this section, the term ``small
business'' means an employer who employed an average of at
least 2 but not more than 50 employees on business days
during the preceding calendar year.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, $60,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2004 through 2006.
(2) Evaluations and administration.--With respect to the
total amount appropriated for such period in accordance with
this subsection, not more than $5,000,000 of that amount may
be used for expenditures related to conducting evaluations
required under, and the administration of, this section.
(k) Termination of Program.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2007.
______
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 390. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide
retroactive effect to a sentencing safety valve provision; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 390
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 ``Safety Valve Fairness Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF LIMITATION ON STATUTORY
MINIMUMS IN CERTAIN CASES.
(a) In General.--Section 3553(f) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``whether or not the sentence
for that offense was imposed before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this subsection,'' before ``the court shall
impose a sentence''.
(b) Effect on Existing Convictions.--The amendment made by
this section shall apply with respect to sentences imposed
before the date of enactment of this Act but not yet
completed. A prisoner may who was so sentenced may petition
for reconsideration of that sentence.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Miller,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Campbell,
Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 392. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit
retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected
disability to receive both military retired pay by reason of their
years of military service and disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
Mr. REID. Madam President, over the last several years, I have tried
to correct a long-standing injustice impacting our Nation's veterans.
Under a law that is now over 110 years old, most veterans who retire
with 20 years of honorable service, and who also have a service-related
disability, cannot collect both their retirement and their disability
pay.
In 2001, I was joined by 82 cosponsors in introducing S. 170, the
``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.'' Our bill sought to lift the
restrictions to allow veterans the ``concurrent receipt'' of both
retirement compensation and disability benefits. Although we were
successful in getting the language approved in the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2002, now codified at 10 U.S.C. 1414, the
authorization was made contingent upon the passage of further
appropriations. No funds were ever appropriated and concurrent receipt
remained another unfulfilled promise to our veterans.
In 2002, I introduced S. 2051, the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of
2002'' to repeal the contingency language and make concurrent receipt a
reality. The Senate again overwhelmingly passed this measure.
Unfortunately, the White House threatened a veto of the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2003, and therefore, the Conference
Committee conceded to a compromise proposal, see Section 636 of
Conference Report 107-772. This compromise was a much scaled-back
version of concurrent receipt. Senator Warner correctly referred to it
as a ``beachhead'', but we all acknowledged there was much work
remaining.
Under last year's compromise, only a small number of veterans--
estimated to be between 15 to 30 thousand--would stand to benefit. The
compromise left the contingency language for full concurrent receipt in
place, but created a new category of special compensation, now codified
at 10 U.S.C. 1413(a). In this new category, retirees that had at least
a 60 percent disability rating that was a direct result of armed
conflict, hazardous service, performance of duty under conditions
simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war, would be eligible
to collect both retirement compensation and disability benefits. Thus,
the current law excludes approximately 500,000 disabled veterans who
have served their country honorably. To exclude these veterans assumes
that they are less deserving of fair compensation because they did not
incur their injury in combat. The law also creates an unnecessary
bureaucracy for the VA and the Department of Defense, which currently
do not make distinctions based on the specific cause of a service-
connected disability.
Therefore, I rise today with Mr. McCain, to introduce the ``Retired
Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms.
Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this
inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a
service-connected disability.
Our bill removes the contingency language for full concurrent receipt
currently found at 10 U.S.C 1414(a) and (f), and repeals the Special
Compensation programs codified at 10 U.S.C. 1413 and 1413(a). The
effect would be to finally implement full concurrent receipt, thereby
ending the 110 year inequity.
Passage and implementation of this bill is long overdue. I am sure
many of my colleagues would be interested to learn that Congress
imposed these restrictions on concurrent receipt just after the Civil
War, when the standing army of the United States was extremely limited.
At that time, only a small portion of our armed forces consisted of
career soldiers.
Today, nearly one and a half million Americans dedicate their lives
to the
[[Page S2468]]
defense of our Nation. The United States' military force is unmatched
in terms of power, training and ability. Our Nation's status as the
world's only superpower is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans
made during the last century. Rather than honoring their commitment and
bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the federal government has
chosen instead to perpetuate a longstanding injustice. Quite simply,
this is disgraceful, and we must correct it.
Once again our Nation is calling upon the members of the Armed Forces
to defend democracy and freedom in Afghanistan, in the Persian Gulf and
throughout the world. We must send a signal to the men and women
currently in uniform that our government takes care of those that make
sacrifices for our Nation. We must demonstrate to veterans that we are
thankful for their dedicated service.
Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned and
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the
distinction between these two entitlements. Military retired pay is
earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices
inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for serving two
decades or more under conditions that most Americans find intolerable.
Veterans' disability compensation, on the other hand, is paid to
recompense pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a
service-connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on
their retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem
worse by limiting or denying any post-service working life.
Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to
receive VA disability benefits. All other Federal employees receive
both their civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset.
Simply put, the law discriminates against career military men and
women. It assumes, in effect, that disabled military retirees neither
need nor deserve the full compensation they earned for their 20 or more
years served in uniform.
This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to the men and women
who sacrificed their own safety to protect this great nation? How do we
explain this inequity to those members currently risking their lives to
defeat terror?
We are currently losing over one thousand World War II veterans each
day. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means continuing to
deny fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will
never have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
This bill represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that
has existed for far too long. Allowing disabled veterans to receive
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently
will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans,
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reservists Association, the
Military Officer's Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and
the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
Passing this bill will finally eliminate a grossly inequitable 19th
century law and ensure fairness within the Federal retirement policy.
Our veterans have heard enough excuses. Now it is time for them to hear
our gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation to finally end this disservice to our retired military men
and women.
Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their
service to our Nation.
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. 392
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 ``Retired Pay Restoration Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FULL PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION TO
DISABLED MILITARY RETIREES.
(a) Restoration of Full Retired Pay Benefits.--Section 1414
of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have
service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and
veterans' disability compensation
``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of
the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other
than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled
to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid
both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The
retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this
title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable
under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's
retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and
5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of
the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title
exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would
have been entitled under any other provision of law based
upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the
member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20
years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of
this title at the time of the member's retirement.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the
meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of
title 38.''.
(b) Repeal of Special Compensation Programs.--Sections 1413
and 1413a of such title are repealed.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the items
relating to sections 1413, 1413a, and 1414 and inserting the
following:
``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the
date specified in paragraph (1).
(b) Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may be paid to any
person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by section 2(a), for any period before the
effective date applicable under subsection (a).
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I first introduced legislation on this
issue all the way back in 1992. Then again in 1993, then again in 1994,
then again in 1995. In 1999, I drafted legislation that became law--as
a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely
disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent.
Here we are in 2003 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem
that has plagued our veterans and to rectify it, once and for all, for
all military retirees who have become disabled during their military
service.
I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to
defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I
know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character,
that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Forces
devotion to duty.
Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women
who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States
has exerted military force more than 280 times since the end of World
Ward II. We are even now engaged in an epic struggle against a new and
hidden enemy that involves the men and women of our armed forces.
Once again our young men and women are defiantly heading into harms
way with the understanding that we, as the lawmakers of this great
Nation, will ensure they are taken care of as citizens and as veterans
for their actions above and beyond the call of duty.
We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to
these brave men and women, and for the future men and women who
continue to serve in this time of trial.
[[Page S2469]]
The existing law as it stands is simply discriminatory and wrong.
``Concurrent receipt'' is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present
law simply discriminates against career military people who have been
injured or disabled while in conduct of their duties while in defense
of this great Nation. Retired veterans are the only group of federal
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to
receive VA disability compensation.
In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for
loyal and selfless service to our country. The other for physical or
mental `pain and suffering' occurred in that service to country.
The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan
support in Congress for several years.
The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and
retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other
veterans' service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans.
For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career in
the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they
will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive
their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for
their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.
It is long overdue for us to redress the unfair practice of requiring
disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation.
Sixty percent is not enough! We need full funding for all military
retirees. It is time to show our appreciation to the men and women who
have sacrificed so much for our great Nation.
Therefore, I am proud to rise today with Mr. Reid, to introduce the
``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr.
Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms.
Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, and Ms.
Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our
Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.
I am thankful for the Senate's action to address this important issue
today and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to carry this
legislative provision through Conference and final passage.
______
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 393. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
employers a credit against income tax with respect to employees who
participate in the military reserve components and to allow a
comparable credit for participating reserve component self-employed
individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALLEN. 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. 393
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 ``____ Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL.
(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. RESERVE COMPONENT EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
reserve component employment credit determined under this
section is an amount equal to the sum of--
``(1) the employment credit with respect to all qualified
employees of the taxpayer, plus
``(2) the self-employment credit of a qualified self-
employed taxpayer.
``(b) Employment Credit.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The employment credit with respect to a
qualified employee of the taxpayer for any taxable year is
equal to 100 percent of the excess, if any, of--
``(A) the qualified employee's average daily qualified
compensation for the taxable year, over
``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances
received by the qualified employee during the taxable year,
while participating in qualified reserve component duty to
the exclusion of the qualified employee's normal employment
duties for the number of days the qualified employee
participates in qualified reserve component duty during the
taxable year, including time spent in a travel status. The
employment credit, with respect to all qualified employees,
is equal to the sum of the employment credits for each
qualified employee under this subsection.
``(2) Average daily qualified compensation and average
daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a
qualified employee--
``(A) the term `average daily qualified compensation' means
the qualified compensation of the qualified employee for the
taxable year divided by the difference between--
``(i) 365, and
``(ii) the number of days the qualified employee
participates in qualified reserve component duty during the
taxable year, including time spent in a travel status, and
``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances'
means--
``(i) the amount paid to the qualified employee during the
taxable year as military pay and allowances on account of the
qualified employee's participation in qualified reserve
component duty, divided by
``(ii) the total number of days the qualified employee
participates in qualified reserve component duty, including
time spent in travel status.
``(3) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to
the compensation paid or that would have been paid to a
qualified employee for any period during which the qualified
employee participates in qualified reserve component duty,
the term `qualified compensation' means--
``(A) compensation which is normally contingent on the
qualified employee's presence for work and which would be
deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section
162(a)(1) if the qualified employee were present and
receiving such compensation,
``(B) compensation which is not characterized by the
taxpayer as vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay,
or as any other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of
absence, and with respect to which the number of days the
qualified employee participates in qualified reserve
component duty does not result in any reduction in the amount
of vacation time, sick leave, or other nonspecific leave
previously credited to or earned by the qualified employee,
and
``(C) group health plan costs (if any) with respect to the
qualified employee.
``(4) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee'
means a person who--
``(A) has been an employee of the taxpayer for the 21-day
period immediately preceding the period during which the
employee participates in qualified reserve component duty,
and
``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve
component of an Armed Force of the United States as defined
in sections 10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
``(c) Self-Employment Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The self-employment credit of a
qualified self-employed taxpayer for any taxable year is
equal to 100 percent of the excess, if any, of--
``(A) the self-employed taxpayer's average daily self-
employment income for the taxable year over
``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances
received by the taxpayer during the taxable year, while
participating in qualified reserve component duty to the
exclusion of the taxpayer's normal self-employment duties for
the number of days the taxpayer participates in qualified
reserve component duty during the taxable year, including
time spent in a travel status.
``(2) Average daily self-employment income and average
daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a
self-employed taxpayer--
``(A) the term `average daily self-employment income' means
the self-employment income (as defined in section 1402) of
the taxpayer for the taxable year plus the amount paid for
insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer for
such year (within the meaning of section 162(l)) divided by
the difference between--
``(i) 365, and
``(ii) the number of days the taxpayer participates in
qualified reserve component duty during the taxable year,
including time spent in a travel status, and
``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances'
means--
``(i) the amount paid to the taxpayer during the taxable
year as military pay and allowances on account of the
taxpayer's participation in qualified reserve component duty,
divided by
``(ii) the total number of days the taxpayer participates
in qualified reserve component duty, including time spent in
travel status.
``(3) Qualified self-employed taxpayer.--The term
`qualified self-employed taxpayer' means a taxpayer who--
``(A) has net earnings from self-employment (as defined in
section 1402) for the taxable year, and
``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve
component of an Armed Force of the United States.
[[Page S2470]]
``(d) Credit in Addition to Deduction.--The employment
credit provided in this section is in addition to any
deduction otherwise allowable with respect to compensation
actually paid to a qualified employee during any period the
qualified employee participates in qualified reserve
component duty to the exclusion of normal employment duties.
``(e) Limitations.--
``(1) Disallowance for failure to comply with employment or
reemployment rights of members of the reserve components of
the armed forces of the united states.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer for--
``(A) any taxable year in which the taxpayer is under a
final order, judgment, or other process issued or required by
a district court of the United States under section 4323 of
title 38 of the United States Code with respect to a
violation of chapter 43 of such title, and
``(B) the 2 succeeding taxable years.
``(2) Disallowance with respect to persons ordered to
active duty for training.--No credit shall be allowed under
subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to any period for
which the person on whose behalf the credit would otherwise
be allowable is called or ordered to active duty for any of
the following types of duty:
``(A) active duty for training under any provision of title
10, United States Code,
``(B) training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target
practice, or other exercises under chapter 5 of title 32,
United States Code, or
``(C) full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section
101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
``(f) General Definitions and Special Rules.--
``(1) Military pay and allowances.--The term `military pay'
means pay as that term is defined in section 101(21) of title
37, United States Code, and the term `allowances' means the
allowances payable to a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States under chapter 7 of that title.
``(2) Qualified reserve component duty.--The term
`qualified reserve component duty' includes only active duty
performed, as designated in the reservist's military orders,
in support of a contingency operation as defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
``(3) Normal employment and self-employment duties.--A
person shall be deemed to be participating in qualified
reserve component duty to the exclusion of normal employment
or self-employment duties if the person does not engage in or
undertake any substantial activity related to the person's
normal employment or self-employment duties while
participating in qualified reserve component duty unless in
an authorized leave status or other authorized absence from
military duties. If a person engages in or undertakes any
substantial activity related to the person's normal
employment or self-employment duties at any time while
participating in a period of qualified reserve component
duty, unless during a period of authorized leave or other
authorized absence from military duties, the person shall be
deemed to have engaged in or undertaken such activity for the
entire period of qualified reserve component duty.
``(4) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply
for purposes of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 38(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general business credit) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (14),
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
inserting ``, plus'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(16) the reserve component employment credit determined
under section 45G(a).''.
(c) 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 inserting after the item
relating to section 45F the following new item:
``Sec. 45G. Reserve component employment credit.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
______
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 394. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the combat zone income tax exclusion to include income for the period
of transit to the combat zone and to remove the limitation on such
exclusion for commissioned officers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALLEN. 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. 394
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR COMBAT ZONE
SERVICE.
(a) Combat Zone Service To Include Transit to Zone.--
Section 112(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Such service shall include any
period of transit to the combat zone.''.
(b) Removal of Limitation on Exclusion for Commissioned
Officers.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 112 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain combat
zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces) is
repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 112(a) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``below the grade of commissioned
officer'', and
(ii) by striking ``Enlisted Personnel'' in the heading and
inserting ``In General''.
(B) Section 112(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraphs (1) and (5) and by redesignating paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 395. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a 3-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax
legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Conrad, Crapo,
Breaux, Leahy, Harkin, Durbin, Craig, Johnson, Chafee, Snowe, and
Kerry.
This bill, entitled the ``Bipartisan Renewable Efficient Energy with
Zero Effluent, BREEZE, Act,'' extends the production tax credit for
electricity generated by wind for three years. The current tax credit
is set to expire on January 1, 2004.
As the author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I sought to
give this alternative energy source the ability to compete against
traditional, finite energy sources. I strongly believe that the
expansion and development of wind energy must be facilitated by this
production tax credit.
Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally
safe form of energy production. Wind energy makes valuable
contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment.
Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can
reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing
the combustion of fossil fuels.
Since the inception of the wind energy production tax credit in 1993,
more than 3,000 megawatts of generating capacity have been put online.
This generating capacity powers nearly 900,000 homes.
Just last year, over 400 megawatts of new wind energy capacity was
installed, bringing total capacity to more than 4,500 megawatts. Wind
energy is currently serving the equivalent of more than 1.3 million
average American homes in 27 states across the country.
During the past two decades, the price of wind energy has been
reduced more than 80 percent, making it one of the least expensive
sources of renewable energy. In order to continue this investment and
development in America's energy future, we must extend the production
tax credit.
From 1999 to 2001, wind energy capacity in Iowa grew by 33 percent,
and while Iowa ranks tenth in the nation in terms of wind energy
potential, Iowa currently ranks third nationally in wind development,
with over 400 megawatts of generating capacity. Only California and
Texas generate more electricity from wind than Iowa. And, the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources estimates that Iowa has the potential
to produce nearly 5 times its own annual electrical needs through wind
power.
Wind energy also produces substantial economic benefits. For each
wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year
for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms already
pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners.
Equally important, wind energy increases our energy independence,
thereby providing the United States with insulation from an oil supply
dominated by the Middle East. Our national security is currently
threatened by a heavy reliance on oil from abroad.
[[Page S2471]]
Unfortunately, due to the structure of the current tax incentive, a
significant portion of the electricity industry is unable to take
advantage of the credit. Rural electric cooperatives and municipal
utilities provide power to nearly 25 percent of the Nation's consumers.
To encourage a unified national energy plan, it's only fair to give
cooperatives and other not-for-profit utilities the ability to use
renewable tax incentives.
REC's and municipal utilities should be given a mechanism to utilize
the tax incentives for renewable electricity generation. And, while the
legislation I'm introducing today does not address this issue, I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to
include such a mechanism in a comprehensive energy tax package.
Extending the wind energy tad credit would allow for even greater
expansion and planning stability in the wind energy field. Wind is a
domestically produced natural resource, found abundantly across the
country. Because wind energy is homegrown, it cannot be controlled by
any foreign power.
Wind energy can be harnessed without injury to our environment. Wind
is a reliable form of power that is renewable and inextinguishable.
This legislation ensures that wind energy does not fall by the wayside
as a productive alternative energy source.
The Senate needs to extend this important incentive and I encourage
my colleagues to join us in this effort.
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. 395
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 ``Bipartisan Renewable,
Efficient Energy with Zero Effluent (BREEZE) Act''.
SEC. 2. 3-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY
FROM WIND.
Section 45(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to wind facility) is amended by striking ``January
1, 2004'' and inserting ``January 1, 2007''.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY):
S. 396. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt
small manufacturers from the firearms excise tax; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gunsmith
Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding
for the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund by simplifying
administration and compliance with the excise tax by eliminating the
assessment of the tax against custom gunsmiths.
The creation of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund 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.
Under the tax code, all manufacturers of firearms must pay an excise
tax of 10 percent or 11 percent of the retail price, depending on the
type of firearm. For more than 25 years custom gunsmiths have sought to
clarify that they were not intended to be subject to this tax. Many
custom gunsmiths do not actually make new guns, rather they remodel or
refurbish existing firearms. The proposal establishes an exemption from
the excise tax for manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms per year.
This issue is important to individuals in Montana. Steven Dodd
Hughes, a custom gunmaker in Livingston, MT, pays this tax. He has a
sole proprietorship, a one man shop. Steven's business is generated
from outside of Montana and brings in much needed revenue to his
community. He agrees with the tax as it was intended, on manufacturers.
It was not intended to be applied to one man operations such as his.
The American Custom Gunmakers Guild and the NRA agree with Mr. Hughes.
In summary, the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would
accomplish two worthy objectives. First, this proposal will eliminate
the assessment of the excise tax on custom gunmakers, which is fair.
Second it eliminates the significant administrative burden placed on
small businesses, such as determining who the manufacturer is and who
is going to assess and collect the tax. These custom gunmakers rebuild
and update the firearms, they don't administer tax laws. Last year, the
Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the proposal will decrease
revenues by less than $10 million over ten years, resulting in minimal
reduction of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill entitled ``The
Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003'' be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 396
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 ``Gunsmith Excise Tax
Simplification Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CUSTOM GUNSMITHS.
(a) Small Manufacturers Exempt From Firearms Excise Tax.--
Section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to exemptions) is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as
subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Small Manufacturers, Etc.--
``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by section 4181 shall
not apply to any article described in such section if
manufactured, produced, or imported by a person who
manufactures, produces, and imports less than 50 of such
articles during the calendar year.
``(2) Controlled groups.--All persons treated as a single
employer for purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of section 52
shall be treated as one person for purposes of paragraph
(1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or
importer on or after the date which is the first day of the
month beginning at least 2 weeks after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) No inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this
section shall be construed to create any inference with
respect to the proper tax treatment of any sales before the
effective date of such amendments.
______
By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mrs. HUTCHISON):
S. 397. A bill to amend the internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction for the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance taxes
paid by employees and self-employed individuals, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, 194 years ago this week, a son was born to
Nancy and Thomas Lincoln in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. That son, Abraham,
would go on to become President of the United States at one of the most
defining times in our Nation's history.
President Lincoln is still revered today for his leadership and
vision of a country in which all citizens have the opportunity to
succeed. In 1864, when the outcomes of the war and his re-election were
in question, he asked soldiers from Ohio's 66th regiment to stop at the
White House on their way home so he could express his appreciation.
President Lincoln shared with them the following:
``I beg you to remember this . . . I happen temporarily to occupy
this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your
children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order
that each of you may have through this free government which we have
enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise
and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of
life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the
struggle would be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright . . .
The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable
jewel.''
That jewel--the American dream that should be within reach of all who
grasp for it--has been the hope of generations in this nation. This
Nation that elected Abraham Lincoln--born in a one-room log cabin and
once a farmhand . . . This Nation that harvests in its children a
yearning to soar beyond the earth's atmosphere . . . This Nation that
preaches that education, hard work, and family bring success.
Unfortunately, making a living, raising a family, and educating
ourselves and our children is becoming more and more difficult in
America. And it's the
[[Page S2472]]
leaders of this nation that have made the obstacles to success higher
to get over and wider to get around.
Here in Washington, we've built a wall of obstacles with one tax
burden after another. Our Founding Fathers outlined exactly the powers
they wanted Congress to have in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution. Just because the first thing listed is the power to lay
and collect taxes, doesn't mean it's the power we need to exercise the
most.
Not only should we take the responsibility of stopping the building
of this wall of tax burdens, we need to step up and start removing
these burdens. We need to alleviate the tremendous stress that comes
with having to work to pay so much of what we earn to the government.
Last year, the average taxpayer in my home State of Nevada did not
finish paying taxes until April 27, which was also the average across
the United States. Everything earned for the first 117 days of the year
went to a government entity. In comparison, the average American spends
only 106 days paying for food, clothing, and shelter combined.
That doesn't leave enough days to pay for a family vacation or to
save for education or to pay medical bills or to save for retirement or
to take a class to improve skills or to do whatever you want with your
money--after all, it is your money.
In itself, our tax system is unfair because American families have to
work harder to make more money only to pay greater taxes, and workers
bear the burden of a government that continues to find ways to tax them
into working even harder.
Whatever our individual thoughts are on tax relief, we must agree
that, although being taxed has become a challenging part of life, the
idea of being double taxed is truly the government stealing from
working Americans. Double taxation is immoral. Think about it in terms
of a parent teaching a child. I am a parent of three young children.
Just as I would explain to my children that it is not all right to take
a piece of candy that they have not paid for, I would also tell them it
is absolutely not okay to charge someone for something they aren't
getting. But that is exactly what our government is doing with the
Social Security tax.
Time magazine recently called it ``The Really Unfair Tax.'' I call it
the Social Security double dip. The take-home pay of 100 million
Americans is fodder for this gutsy government scam. In very simple
terms, this means that when a family pays income tax, the portion that
is withheld for Social Security--money that they never see--is
calculated into their personal income. The first dip is the tax that
workers pay on wage income. The second dip is the icing on the cake for
the government--taxing money that they are already taking anyway.
Working Americans are forced to pay income tax on their Social Security
tax. It is textbook double taxation, and if a business concocted such a
scheme it would be shut down. How can we continue this policy if we
would teach our children that it is wrong? This is only one reason why
the tax is unfair.
Another example of the outrageousness of this tax is that while
working families are double taxed, American businesses are not. You
see, half the Social Security tax is paid by workers, but employers pay
the other half. Businesses and corporations get to deduct what they pay
in Social Security taxes--a savings that working families are not
afforded. This tax discrimination is unacceptable.
We must eliminate this absolutely wrong tax policy that mocks our
Constitution's goal to ``promote the general Welfare.'' I propose an
above-the-line deduction for Social Security taxes so that an
individual's Social Security taxes are not included in the calculation
of income for income tax purposes. It's the right thing to do if we
want to lead this Nation by example. Providing a Social Security tax
deduction makes sense and will make a real difference to working
families. About 100 million individuals and families would feel the
savings--to the tune of around $2,000 each. Such savings translate into
real growth and opportunity. Scholars predict that the Payroll Tax
Deduction Act would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country, and it also
means a Nation of workers who get to keep more of their hard-earned
money.
When government takes money away from working families, it stifles
growth and builds obstacles to success. Let's take this chance to
provide relief to America's families, open the doors to opportunity,
and let future generations know that the American dream--the jewel that
inspired Abraham Lincoln--is well within the reach of all who truly
desire it.
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. 397
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 ``Payroll Tax Deduction Act''.
SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY
INSURANCE TAXES OF EMPLOYEES AND SELF-EMPLOYED
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Taxes of Employees.--
(1) Deduction allowed in arriving at adjusted gross
income.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining adjusted gross income) is amended by inserting
after paragraph (18) the following new paragraph:
``(19) Employees' oasdi taxes.--The deduction allowed by
section 164(g).''.
(2) Determination of deduction.--Section 164 of such Code
(relating to deduction for taxes) is amended by redesignating
subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by inserting after
subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Employees' OASDI Taxes.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, in
addition to the taxes described in subsection (a), there
shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) for the taxable
year, and
``(B) the taxes imposed by section 3201(a) for the taxable
year but only to the extent attributable to the percentage in
effect under section 3101(a).
``(2) Special rule for certain agreements.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), taxes imposed by section 3101(a) shall include
amounts equivalent to such taxes imposed with respect to
remuneration covered by--
``(A) an agreement under section 218 of the Social Security
Act, or
``(B) an agreement under section 3121(l) (relating to
agreements entered into by American employers with respect to
foreign affiliates).
``(3) Coordination with special refund of social security
taxes.--Taxes shall not be taken into account under paragraph
(1) to the extent the taxpayer is entitled to a special
refund of such taxes under section 6413(c).
``(4) Coordination with earned income credit.--No deduction
shall be allowed under paragraph (1) for any taxable year if
the individual elects to claim the earned income credit under
section 32 for the taxable year.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 275 of
such Code is amended in the matter following paragraph (6) by
inserting ``or 164(g)'' after ``164(f)''.
(b) Deduction for Self-Employed Individuals.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 164(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for one-
half of self-employment taxes) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, in
addition to the taxes described in subsection (a), there
shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the taxes imposed by section 1401(a) for such taxable
year, plus
``(B) 50 percent of the taxes imposed by section 1401(b)
for such taxable year.
In the case of an individual who elects to claim the earned
income credit under section 32 for the taxable year, only 50
percent of the taxes described in subparagraph (A) shall be
taken into account.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 32(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``who elects the application of this section'' after
``eligible individual''.
(B) The heading for section 164(f) of such Code is amended
by striking ``One-Half'' and inserting ``Portion''.
(C) Section 1402(a)(12) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``one-half'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``portion'', and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting:
``(B) a percentage equal to the sum for such year of the
rate of tax under section 1401(a) and one-half of the rate of
tax under section 1401(b);''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.
______
By Mr. ALLEN:
[[Page S2473]]
S. 398. A bill to provide that members of the Armed Forces performing
services at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, and in the Horn of
Africa in support of Operation Enduring Freedom shall be entitled to
tax benefits in the same manner as if such services were performed in a
combat zone, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALLEN. 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. 398
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS
OF THE ARMED FORCES PERFORMING SERVICES AT
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, CUBA, AND IN THE
HORN OF AFRICA.
(a) General Rule.--In the case of a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States who is entitled to special pay
under section 310 of title 37, United States Code (relating
to special pay: duty subject to hostile fire or imminent
danger), for services performed at Guantanamo Bay Naval
Station, Cuba, or in any country located in the region known
as the Horn of Africa as part of Operation Enduring Freedom
(or any successor operation), such member shall be treated in
the same manner as if such services were in a combat zone (as
determined under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) for purposes of the following provisions of such Code:
(1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule where
deceased spouse was in missing status).
(2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of certain
combat pay of members of the Armed Forces).
(3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of
Armed Forces on death).
(4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces
dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone-incurred
wounds, etc.).
(5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating to combat
pay for members of the Armed Forces).
(6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of phone
service originating from a combat zone from members of the
Armed Forces).
(7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return where
individual is in missing status).
(8) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain
acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Withholding.--Subsection (a)(5) shall apply to
remuneration paid on or after such date of enactment.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 399. A bill to authorize grants for the establishment of quasi-
judicial campus drug courts at colleges and universities modeled after
State drug courts programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today I introduce the ``Campus
Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act of 2003.''
The legislation I am introducing today is based on legislation I
previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress.
The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act,
which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the
Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide
grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges
establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering
the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking
such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the
students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be
administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs,
would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered
from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system.
Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize
the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years
2004 through 2007. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs
to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to
help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and
running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the
Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant-
making program, including providing an Internet-based application
process.
There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish
a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first
appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the
Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in
prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the
alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing,
drug courts help get people clean.
Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan
support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration.
For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of
National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug
Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave
speeches in support of drug courts and the benefits they provide.
According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of
Justice's Office of Justice Programs, as of November 2002, 946 Drug
Courts are operating all across the United States. This is an
impressive increase of approximately 250 Drug Courts over the past
year. This 946 Drug Courts includes 547 Adult Drug Courts, 245 Juvenile
Drug Courts, 59 Family Drug Courts and 14 Combination Courts. Over 400
additional new Drug Courts are in the planning process.
The report goes on to state that approximately 300,000 adults and
12,000 juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system to date.
Of those participants, 73,000 adults and 4,500 juveniles have
successfully graduated from Drug Courts.
The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide,
drug courts have been instrumental in enabling more than 1,000 children
to be born drug free, more than 3,500 parents to regain custody of
their children, and 4,500 parents to resume making their child-support
payments. The retention rate is over 70 percent with 73 percent of the
participants managing to keep their jobs or successfully find new work.
These are encouraging statistics, and not just for the individuals
involved, but for society as a whole.
While it is not as easy to measure, we know that Drug Courts play a
beneficial role in reducing criminal behavior since so much crime these
days is drug related.
Drug Courts also help save up money. It is estimated that every
dollar spent on Drug Courts saves our country and communities
approximately ten dollars in reduced prison and other criminal justice
costs.
These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the
drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we
work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse
challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities.
Just as drugs are deeply interconnected with crime on our streets,
drugs and serious substance abuse are also interconnected with much of
the academic failure that damages so many of our Nation's institutions
of higher learning and their aspiring students seeking college degrees.
Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where
offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court
supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time.
Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get
supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and
watch their futures get squandered away.
Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems
directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities
and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help
provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to
help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the
existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not
respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the
fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have
been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act.
[[Page S2474]]
Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and
universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs,
or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for
disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to
participate in the new Federal program.
Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions
of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU,
has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply
the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as
it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep
students clean and in school.
Our Drug Court system is making a difference all across our Nation.
In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``Drug
Courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more
frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other
forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug
use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are
participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower
after participation, especially for graduates.''
Our Nation's Drug Court system is a good example of a viable and
productive partnership between the Federal Government our State
governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a
positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to
thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of
Drug Court Professionals and the state and local judges, prosecutors,
law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to
establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court
system.
I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson,
Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals for her letter of support for the Campus CORT legislation
I am introducing today. It is appreciated.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support and 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:
National Association of
Drug Court Professionals,
Alexandria, VA, January 15, 2003.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: As the representative of the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and
of drug court professionals throughout the country, I am
writing this letter of support for the Campus Classmate
Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment (CORT) Act'' which
I understand you will be introducing in the Senate in the
near future. Not only are campus drug courts a natural
progression of the traditional drug court system which has
proliferated successfully throughout the country for more
than a decade, but they also will serve as yet another
mechanism to reduce drug abuse and its concomitant crime.
Drug court professionals throughout the country truly
appreciate your tenacious support and are eager to work
collectively with you and other legislators to ensure that
substance-abusing students are reached early and do not
continuously cycle through the revolving door of the criminal
justice system.
Because of your in depth knowledge of the substance abuse
and its concomitant crime, you are already aware that drug
and alcohol abuse is not limited to a specific age, gender or
race. However, according to the 2001 National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse, approximately 15.9 million Americans
aged 12 or older were current users of an illicit drug in
2001, representing 7.1% of the population. The highest rate
of use was found among young adults (ages 18-25) with 18.8%
reporting current use and among youth (ages 12-17) with
10.8%. Current use of any illicit drug in the population aged
12 and older increased significantly from 6.3% in 2000 to
7.1% in 2001. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration reported an equally alarming statistic in its
fact sheet entitled ``Consequences of Underage Alcohol Use''
as it stated in 1998, there were 8,844 arrests for drug law
violations on 487 college campuses.
Unfortunately, the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse and other studies clearly indicate that the need still
exists to invest more attention to the rising problem of drug
abuse, specifically on college campuses, throughout the
country. Drug courts have already proven that an early
investment in treatment obviates the need for repeated
investments in incarceration and allow previously addicted
offenders to lead healthy, productive lives within their
communities. Campus drug courts are the natural extension of
drug courts and will combat campus drug and alcohol abuse
head on, thereby preventing accidents and crimes at colleges
and universities throughout the nation.
Thank you once again for you stanch support of the drug
court field and for introducing the ``Campus CORT Act.'' I
look forward to providing support to this and similar
legislation and to working with you and your staff in the
future.
Very truly yours,
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.),
Chief Executive Officer.
____
S. 399
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 ``Campus Classmate Offenders
in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act'' or the ``Campus CORT
Act''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMPUS DRUG COURTS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Office of Justice Programs, is authorized to make
demonstration grants to accredited universities and colleges
to establish not to exceed 5 campus classmate offenders in
rehabilitation and treatment programs (referred to as
``Campus CORTS'') each fiscal year modeled after the
statewide local drug court programs throughout the United
States.
(b) Campus CORTS.--Campus CORTS shall--
(1) be established at accredited colleges or universities;
(2) have jurisdiction over substance abuse related
disciplinary cases involving students that may or may not be
criminal in nature, including illegal drug use, abuse of
prescription drugs, alcohol abuse, and other issues, but no
student who is deemed to be a danger to the community may be
involved;
(3) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney
General, establish appropriate quasi-judicial standards and
procedures for disciplinary cases; and
(4) impose as the ultimate sanction expulsion from school.
(c) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a.,
the National Drug Court Institute, universities and colleges,
including the Campus Drug Court program at Colorado State
University, and other experts in establishing quasi-judicial
standards required by this Act.
(d) Assistance.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
qualified universities and colleges, the National Association
of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a., the National Drug Court
Institute, and other associations and experts to assist in
establishing campus drug courts and provide training and
technical assistance in support of the program.
(e) Grant Making Considerations.--In awarding grants to
qualified colleges or universities, the Office of Justice
Programs should--
(1) endeavor to include colleges and universities of
different sizes across the United States; and
(2) enable colleges and universities to apply for grants
through the Internet site of the Office of Justice Programs.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2004 through 2007 to carry out this Act.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 401. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase to
parity with other surviving spouses the basic annuity that is provided
under the uniformed services Survivor Benefit Plan for surviving
spouses who are at least 62 years of age; and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue of
great importance to our military retirees. This issue I want to address
is the Survivor's Benefit Plan and the need to eliminate the Social
Security offset.
The Survivor's Benefit Plan, SBP, has been in existence for nearly 30
years. Under this plan, military retirees may contribute part of their
monthly retirement pay to the SBP, with the knowledge that after their
death, their spouses can continue to receive 55 percent of their
monthly retirement pay. But, when the surviving spouse reaches the age
of 62, something disturbing happens. At the age of 62, the widow or
widower of a military retiree sees his or her payments under the SBP
shrink to 35 percent. This reduction is an offset for the Social
Security payments that the survivor has begun to collect.
The survivors of military retirees find this to be unjust, and
rightly so. The SBP is a fund that their spouses payed into, with the
expectation that their survivors would be taken care of
[[Page S2475]]
after they pass away. The SBP is not a lavish monthly payment, but
reflects the low salaries that men and women on active duty receive. In
a recent article in the Shreveport Times, Billie Combs, who is 73, and
is the widow of an Air Force Master Sergeant commented on the strain
that the Social Security Offset imposes on their budget. She said: ``It
curtails my spending. It stops me from buying the things that I need; I
just cut back and make sure that I have enough to carry me through to
the next month.''
The legislation that I introduce today would slowly phase out the
social security offset to Survivor Benefit Plan, reducing it
significantly by 2007, and completely erasing it by 2013.
Those who choose the military as their profession don't do it for the
money. They do it because they have a love for country. They have a
love for country that runs so deep, they would gladly sacrifice their
lives in defense of the homeland. Despite the extreme sacrifice our
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are willing to make, they are
not well compensated. And we don't just ask the servicemen to
sacrifice, we ask their families to make a sacrifice. They endure long
periods of separation, they live in military housing which in many
cases is substandard, and we ask them to get by on low pay. The least
we can do for our servicemen is to given them a decent retirement
system. The very least we can do for their widows, is to restore the
funds that are unjustly removed from their survivor's benefit plan.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article and the text
of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Military Widows Lose Chunk of Benefits at 62
(By Dennis Camire)
Washington.--Some survivors of military retirees have a
rude awakening when they turn 62 and find their income from a
Defense Department pension plan slashed.
Many who enrolled in the survivor annuity plan in the 1970s
say they understood their surviving spouses would receive 55
percent of their retirement pay for life.
But that's not the case. The benefit droops to as low as 35
percent when survivors reach 62. Retires who have paid
decades of premiums say they feel betrayed.
``I like to have dropped dead right there,'' Marion
Charles, 78, said in finding out about the reduction after
her husband, Edward, died last year, ``In fact, I wondered
why God didn't take me with Ed.''
Charles of Plant City, Fla., was left struggling with
funeral expenses, credit card debts and house maintenance
bills after she saw her income drop by $1,200 a month upon
the death of her husband, who retired in 1966 as a Navy chief
petty officer. She now lives in a damaged 28-foot travel
trailer and gets by with help from the Navy-Marine Corps
Relief Society.
Though the annuity covers all spouses of military service
members who don't opt out, women overwhelmingly are affected
because most who have chosen the military as a career through
the years have been men.
``It curtails my spending. It stops me from buying the
things I want and need,'' said Billie Combs, 73, of Bossier
City, widow of an Air Force master sergeant who died in 1995.
``I just cut back and make sure I have enough to carry me
over to the next month.''
Lee Lange of the Military Officers Association of America
called the cutback wrong. ``It just seems counter-intuitive
that we would be cutting their benefit as they get older.''
Benefits for elderly widows and widowers at the 35 percent
level are modest even for relatively senior officers, Lange
said. For many widows of enlisted service members, the money
amounts to less than $5,000 a year.
About 800,000 of the nation's 1.9 million retirees are
paying 6.5 percent of their retirement pay to participate
in the plan, and more than 250,000 survivors are
collecting the benefits.
Service members automatically are enrolled in the program
when they retire but can opt out if they and their spouses
sign a form.
The controversial drop is called a Social Security offset.
The theory behind the drop was that the plan should give a
survivor access to about 55 percent of the member's retired
pay--but from all sources related to military service,
including Social Security.
The offset began as a dollar-for-dollar reduction but was
changed in 1985 to the current plan. Survivors whose spouses
were eligible to retire by Oct. 1, 1985, may have the offset
computed under the old system or the new to gain the best
benefit. The offset is computed only upon death of the
retiree.
Veteran's organizations--including the Military Officers
Association, the Non-commissioned Offers Association, the
American Legion and the Fleet Reserve Association--want
Congress to eliminate the benefit reduction.
The Military Coalition, a group of 33 military and veterans
groups, plans to push for elimination of the cutback as an
issue of fairness and equity for the survivors.
That's how Combs of Bossier City sees it.
``I would tell Congress to worry about the widows. Worry
about the women that are left behind and don't have very much
money and are never really able to get on their feet,'' Combs
said.
``Imagine if all the wives told their husbands to get out
of the military, that they could make a better living on the
outside, then where would we be? But we didn't do that
because they made a promise to us. And now we are having to
fight for it.''
____
S. 401
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 ``SBP Benefits Improvement Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FULL AMOUNT OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING
SPOUSES WHO ARE 62 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER.
(a) Phased Increased of Basic Annuity.--(1) Subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i) of section 1451 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and
inserting ``the product of the base amount and the percent
applicable for the month. The percent applicable for a month
is 35 percent for months beginning on or before the date of
the enactment of the SBP Benefits Improvement Act of 2003, 40
percent for months beginning after such date and before
October 2007, 45 percent for months beginning after September
2004, and 55 percent for months beginning after September
2013.''.
(2) Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of such section is amended
by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the percent
specified under paragraph (1)(B)(i) as being applicable for
the month''.
(3) Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the
applicable percent''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent
applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the
percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being
applicable for the month.''.
(4) The heading for subsection (d)(2)(A) of such section is
amended to read as follows: ``Computation of annuity.--''.
(b) Phased Elimination of Supplemental Annuity.--(1)
Section 1457(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting
``the applicable percent''; and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The percent used for the computation shall be an even
multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in
the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning
on or before the date of the enactment of the SBP Benefits
Improvement Act of 2003, 15 percent for months beginning
after that date and before October 2007, and 10 percent for
months beginning after September 2007.''.
(2) Effective on October 1, 2013, chapter 73 of such title
is amended--
(A) by striking subchapter III; and
(B) by striking the item relating to subchapter III in the
table of subchapters at the beginning of that chapter.
(c) Recomputation of Annuities.--(1) Effective on the first
day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
(A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United
States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed
under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by
subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be
recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in
effect if the percent applicable for that month under that
provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial
computation of the annuity; and
(B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457
of such title that commenced before that month and is payable
for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the
amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for
that month under that section, as amended by this section,
had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental
survivor annuity.
(2) The requirements for recomputation of annuities under
paragraph (1) apply with respect to the following months:
(A) The first month that begins after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(B) October 2007.
(C) October 2013.
(d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for
Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense
shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments
made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection
(c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under
section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to
achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that
section.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 402. A bill to abolish the death penalty under Federal law; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death
Penalty Abolition Act of 2003. This bill would abolish the death
penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate
[[Page S2476]]
halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a
sentence for violations of Federal law.
Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme
Court, there have been 830 executions across the country, including two
at the Federal level. At the same time, 103 people on death row were
later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates
are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from
prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been
convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that
the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains
that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at
least 103 very grave mistakes.
Eight hundred and thirty executions, and 103 exonerations. Those are
not good odds. It is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us
all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country.
Since January 25, 2001, when I last introduced this bill, the Federal
Government resumed executions for the first time in almost 40 years,
and 138 people have been executed nationwide. In this new year, we have
begun our use of capital punishment at an alarming pace. We are only in
the second week of February, and there have already been 10 executions
this year. And yet this one-to-eight error rate looms. Is it possible
that those 10 people are representative of the one-to-eight error rate
that has plagued the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1976? Is
it possible that in the last six weeks, as we have debated a war in
Iraq, funding levels for Federal programs, and judicial nominations,
our nation has killed an innocent person?
It is a difficult question to ask, but an even more difficult one to
ignore.
While executions continue and the death row population grows, the
national debate on the death penalty continues and has become even more
vigorous. The number of voices joining in to express doubt about the
use of capital punishment in America is growing. As evidence of the
flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not
escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of
confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away,
and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and
louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and
podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them.
That our society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing
enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that the States' and Federal
Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with
principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are
the foundation of our criminal justice system. It is more clear than
ever before that we have put innocent people on death row. In addition,
statistics show that those States that have the death penalty are more
likely to put people to death for killing white victims than for
killing black victims.
After the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Federal
Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of
a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in
the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was
then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill
allowed its use to apply to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Since
1994, Federal prosecutions seeking the death penalty have now
accelerated.
A survey on the Federal death penalty system from 1988 to early 2000
was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That
report showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the
federal government's administration of the death penalty. In other
words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate
to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where
the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so
disturbed by the results of that report that she ordered a further, in-
depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to
continue that study, but we still await the results of that further
study. The Federal Government should do all that it can to ensure that
no person is ever subject to harsher penalties, most importantly that
of capital punishment, because of the color of the defendant's skin.
I am certain that not one of my colleagues here in the Senate, not a
single one, would defend racial discrimination in this ultimate
punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal
justice under law, and equal protection of the laws.
While the Federal death penalty system is clearly plagued by flaws,
there are 38 States across our Nation that also authorize the use of
capital punishment. And like the Federal system, those systems are not
free from error.
Over three years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of
placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an
independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty
system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death
penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for
reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the
death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the
innocent is alarming real. Governor Ryan recently pardoned four death
row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death
row inmates, after the State legislature failed to enact even one of
the Commission's recommendations.
Illinois is not alone. Two years ago, then Governor Parris Glendening
learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the
death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other
way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most
exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in
history. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled
execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to
allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not
yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions.
That study was released in January and the findings should startle us
all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply
more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or
than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill
whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who
kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who
kill whites.
Maryland and Illinois are not exceptions to a rule, nor anomalies in
an otherwise perfect system. In fact, since reinstatement of the modern
death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases across the country have
involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims
are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are
African Americans or Hispanic Americans.
There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel,
prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death
penalty systems across the country. While the research done in Maryland
and Illinois has yielded shocking results, there are 36 other States
that authorize the use of the death penalty, most of them far more
frequently. Twenty-one of the 38 States that authorize capital
punishment have executed more inmates than Maryland, and 13 of those
States have carried out more executions than Illinois. So while we are
closer to uncovering the unthinkable truth about the flaws in the
Maryland and Illinois death penalty systems, there are 36 other states
with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And yet,
the killing continues.
At the beginning of 2003, at the beginning of a new century and
millennium with hopes for great progress, I cannot help but believe
that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only
continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. We are a Nation
that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty,
equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human
rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to
speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We
should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.
Over the last two years, some prominent voices in our country have
done
[[Page S2477]]
just that. And they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith
community. They are the voices of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend
Pat Robertson, George Will, former FBI Director William Sessions,
Republican Governor George Ryan, and Democratic Governor Parris
Glending. The voices of those questioning our application of the death
penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.
And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot
help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark
contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death
penalty in law or practice. There are now 111 countries that have
abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The European Union
denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death
penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and
unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it
specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish
the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the
unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States
enjoys the closest of relationships.
On February 5, 2003, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruled
unanimously that the United States must temporarily stay the execution
of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. There are
currently 112 foreign nationals on death row in this country. Under
Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, local
authorities are required to notify all detained foreigners ``without
delay'' of their right to have their consulate informed of their
detention. In most cases, this international law is not being followed.
In fact, only seven cases of 152 reported death sentences have been
identified as meeting complete compliance with Article 36 requirements.
The purpose of this law is to ensure that foreign nationals are allowed
time to secure adequate counsel during the critical stages of their
cases. The February ruling of the ICJ was based on the need for an
investigation into whether the foreign nationals on death row were ever
given their right to legal assistance from their home governments.
What is even more troubling in the international context is that the
United States is now one of only seven countries that imposes the death
penalty for crimes committed by juveniles. So, while a May 2002 Gallup
poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for
those under the age of 18, we are one of only seven nations on this
earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when
they committed their crimes. The other are Iran, the Democratic
Republican of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In
the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders
than all other nations combined, and in the last three years, only four
nations have executed juvenile offenders: Iran, the Congo, Pakistan,
and the United States.
Iran, the Congo, and Pakistan are countries that are often criticized
for human rights abuses. We should remove any grounds for charges that
human rights violations are taking place on our own soil by halting the
execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the
crimes for which they were sentenced to die. No one can reasonably
argue that executing child offenders is a normal or acceptable practice
in the world community. And I do not think that we should be proud that
the United States is the world leader in the execution of child
offenders.
As we begin a new year and another Congress, our society is still far
from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty shames us. The
penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is
immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here.
Our nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like
whipping and cutting off the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our
nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and
ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek justice in
this new century. And it's not just a matter of morality. The continued
viability of our justice system as a truly just system requires that we
do so. And our Nation's striving to remain the leader and defender of
freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.
Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take
patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a
rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.
I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing
the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that
authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us
step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and
integrity to our criminal justice system.
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. 402
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 ``Federal Death Penalty
Abolition Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE DEATH
PENALTY.
(a) Homicide-Related Offenses.--
(1) Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.--Section
274(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``punished
by death or''.
(2) Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related
facilities resulting in death.--Section 34 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death
penalty or''.
(3) Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by
shooting.--Section 36(b)(2)(A) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
(4) Murder committed at an airport serving international
civil aviation.--Section 37(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended, in the matter following paragraph (2), by
striking ``punished by death or''.
(5) Civil rights offenses resulting in death.--Chapter 13
of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 241, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to
death'';
(B) in section 242, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to
death'';
(C) in section 245(b), by striking ``, or may be sentenced
to death''; and
(D) in section 247(d)(1), by striking ``, or may be
sentenced to death''.
(6) Murder of a member of congress, an important executive
official, or a supreme court justice.--Section 351 of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``death or''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``death or''.
(7) Death resulting from offenses involving transportation
of explosives, destruction of government property, or
destruction of property related to foreign or interstate
commerce.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (d), by striking ``or to the death
penalty'';
(B) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``subject to the
death penalty, or'';
(C) in subsection (i), by striking ``or to the death
penalty''; and
(D) in subsection (n), by striking ``(other than the
penalty of death)''.
(8) Murder committed by use of a firearm during commission
of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.--Section
924(j)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``by death or''.
(9) Genocide.--Section 1091(b)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
(10) First degree murder.--Section 1111(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
(11) Murder by a federal prisoner.--Section 1118 of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by death or''; and
(B) in subsection (b), in the third undesignated
paragraph--
(i) by inserting ``or'' before ``an indeterminate''; and
(ii) by striking ``, or an unexecuted sentence of death''.
(12) Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or
other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a
state correctional officer.--Section 1121 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by sentence of death
or''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or death''.
(13) Murder during a kidnaping.--Section 1201(a) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
(14) Murder during a hostage-taking.--Section 1203(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death
or''.
(15) Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a
witness, victim, or informant.--Section 1512(a)(2)(A) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the
death penalty or''.
[[Page S2478]]
(16) Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or
resulting in death.--Section 1716(i) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death penalty
or''.
(17) Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of
the president or vice president.--Section 1751 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``death or''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``death or''.
(18) Murder for hire.--Section 1958(a) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
(19) Murder involved in a racketeering offense.--Section
1959(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``death or''.
(20) Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.--
Section 1992(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``to the death penalty or''.
(21) Bank robbery-related murder or kidnaping.--Section
2113(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``death or''.
(22) Murder related to a carjacking.--Section 2119(3) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, or
sentenced to death''.
(23) Murder related to aggravated child sexual abuse.--
Section 2241(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``unless the death penalty is imposed,''.
(24) Murder related to sexual abuse.--Section 2245 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by
death or''.
(25) Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.--
Section 2251(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``punished by death or''.
(26) Murder committed during an offense against maritime
navigation.--Section 2280(a)(1) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
(27) Murder committed during an offense against a maritime
fixed platform.--Section 2281(a)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
(28) Terrorist murder of a united states national in
another country.--Section 2332(a)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
(29) Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.--
Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``punished by death
or''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``by death, or''.
(30) Murder by act of terrorism transcending national
boundaries.--Section 2332b(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``by death, or''.
(31) Murder involving torture.--Section 2340A(a) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by
death or''.
(32) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or
related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement
officer.--Section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 848) is amended--
(A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection
(e)(1), by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death'';
(B) by striking subsections (g) and (h) and inserting the
following:
``(g) [Reserved.]
``(h) [Reserved.]'';
(C) in subsection (j), by striking `` and as to
appropriateness in that case of imposing a sentence of
death'';
(D) in subsection (k), by striking ``, other than death,''
and all that follows before the period at the end and
inserting ``authorized by law''; and
(E) by striking subsections (l) and (m) and inserting the
following:
``(l) [Reserved.]
``(m) [Reserved.]''.
(33) Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.--Section
46502 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``put to death or'';
and
(B) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``put to death
or''.
(b) Non-Homicide Related Offenses.--
(1) Espionage.--Section 794(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or'' and all
that follows before the period and inserting ``imprisoned for
any term of years or for life''.
(2) Treason.--Section 2381 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``shall suffer death, or''.
(c) Repeal of Criminal Procedures Relating To Imposition of
Death Sentence.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 228 of title 18, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
chapters for part II of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to chapter 228.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on
or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation
of Federal law .
(b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act
for any violation of Federal law shall serve a sentence of
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Conrad, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 403. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Free Trade
with Cuba Act of 2003. This legislation presents an important step
toward normalizing United States economic relations with Cuba and
opening a dialog between our two nations. Perhaps more importantly, the
bill promotes human rights and democracy in a nation that has suffered
under totalitarian rule for more than 4 decades, an objective central
to the same democratic principles that have driven our foreign policy
since the end of the Second World War.
The Free Trade with Cuba Act contains three essential components.
First, it lifts the trade embargo against Cuba and eliminates the
travel ban that accompanies the embargo. Second, it graduates Cuba from
Jackson-Vanik and authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory
trade treatment to Cuba. Finally, it removes the restrictions on travel
between our two countries.
This legislation is similar to the legislation I introduced in the
last Congress, S. 400 and S. 401. That legislation was referred to the
Finance Committee. I am hopeful the committee can pass favorably on
this legislation quickly so we can bring it to the floor and pass it.
This legislation is long overdue. In 1962, the United States
embargoed virtually all trade with Cuba as a response to the rise of
the totalitarian regime and seizure of American property. Over the
years, U.S. sanctions against Cuba were further tightened, culminating
with restrictions on the rights of Americans to visit Cuba.
Within the context of the cold war, many of these sanctions seemed to
make sense. Yet throughout that time the embargo appeared to have
little, if any, effect on the Castro regime. Forty years of the
embargo, 4 decades of disengagement, have simply not worked. It is time
to try a new approach. It is time for engagement.
Supporters of the embargo throw out many arguments against the
legislation. First, they will say that private property of U.S.
citizens that was taken in the early days of the Castro regime compels
us to refuse trade with Cuba until we get the property back. They point
out horrendous treatment of Cuban citizens by Castro and denial of the
most basic human rights is also a reason. Let us be clear. These are
problems and they must be resolved. Yet, the debate is not whether
these problems exist. They do exist, of course, they exist. That is not
the issue. We all know that.
The question, rather, is how to solve it. Forty years of embargo have
done nothing to regain private assets taken so long ago by Castro and
40 years of embargo have done nothing to improve the living conditions
and prospects for democratic reform in Cuba.
I have been to Cuba and visited Cuba. The people are in terrible
shape. If anything, the embargo has lessened the prospects for reform
by giving Castro someone else to blame for the terrible economic plight
of his people. This embargo, frankly, is something Castro loves. It is
a foil. He can blame the United States for some of the ills of his
citizens. It is working in the opposite direction. In other words,
while the problems may seem complicated, the one thing we can say we do
know for certain is this: Current policy is not the answer; the current
policy is a failure.
We must look to alternatives. How would this legislation resolve
these problems? First, as to expropriation, the legislation I am
proposing today calls for the President to undertake negotiations with
the government of Cuba to settle this issue and make sure those harmed
by this expropriation are fairly compensated. Second, as to the crucial
issues of human rights and democratic reform, the legislation simply
reflects the commonsense truth that engagement between the American and
Cuban peoples will do much more to open Cuban society and help Cuban
people, as it has around the world for 200 years, than silence and
neglect--so similar to the question we had of China not too many years
ago.
What did we do with China? The answer was very simple: We engaged. We
[[Page S2479]]
engaged without losing. China is a country. We are a country. Let's
engage again. The same is true for Cuba: They are a country, we are a
country, let's start talking and figure out how to solve things.
We should not delude ourselves. Embargo is a word for neglect. By not
engaging the Cuban people and opening our world and tradition to them,
we are neglecting them.
Last year we worked hard to further trade liberalization, passing the
Trade Act of 2002. When the President signed that bill he said this:
Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global
prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom.
Greater freedom for commerce across the borders eventually
leads to greater freedom for citizens within the borders.
I agree. This statement is as true for Cuba as it is for any other
country.
Third, on the economics of this, sure, we are in tough times. The
economy is flat. Our farmers and workers are hurting, but there is a
market worth up to $1 billion a year we are shutting ourselves out,
denying ourselves. It makes no sense. The embargo against Cuba
accomplishes nothing, and hurts our farmers and workers and companies
by excluding them from a great potential market. Meanwhile, the
European Union, Japan, Mexico, Canada, dozens of other countries, are
busy selling goods and building commercial relations in Cuba. We are
not. They are. Ask me the rationale of that.
There is a final point regarding the basic rights of freedoms of the
American people. It is a fundamental violation of the spirit of our
democratic principles to tell the American people they cannot travel to
Cuba. What a sad irony is trying to promote freedom and democracy in
another country by restricting it in our own. It is time to get real
about this. It is time to get real about promoting freedom and
democracy, it is time to get real regarding economic expansion, and it
is time to end the embargo.
______
By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 404. A bill to protect children from exploitive child modeling,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator
Sam Brownback, the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act.
Many Senators may not be aware of what I am talking about. I was not
until recently, and I think it is important to raise awareness of the
issue. Once my colleagues see what it is I am talking about, I am sure
they will join in supporting my bill.
The Internet sites we are talking about are disturbing and dangerous.
I wanted to have some enlarged pictures to illustrate what I am talking
about, but the images are indecent and would only be further exploiting
these children.
What I am talking about are websites with pictures and videos of
children--mostly girls between the ages of 7 and 14, barely clothed and
in revealing positions--being sold on the Internet. For $25 a month at
one site, you can look at pictures of a sweet and tender child being
turned into a prostitute. She hikes up her skirt and poses in a bikini
on a bearskin rug.
What is the point of this? It is not to sell a bearskin rug or an
article of clothing or any other product. There is one thing being
sold: A child as a sex object.
But there's more to this site. For $50 you can purchase a video of
this little girl dancing and running around in skimpy outfits that
leave little to the imagination.
Normal people do not visit these sites. The primary viewers of these
Internet sites are grown men. Some are pedophiles. Some are even
registered sex offenders.
And what is more disturbing is that some of these children are put on
display by their parents. It is absurd that a parent would do this to
their own child for cash.
Some parents even allow Internet viewers to interact with their
children through e-mail. Some even make personal videos for subscribers
and allow them to send in clothes for the girls to model.
This is wrong. Any sane and logical person knows it is wrong. And
that is why Congress should do something about it.
I am not talking about children modeling clothes in a Sears catalog.
I am not talking about kids advertising shoes or jackets.
That is fine. And legitimate marketing of products is not illegal
under my bill.
This bill has been carefully crafted to protect legitimate modeling
activities and to not trample on the First Amendment.
Children are precious.
I know firsthand because I have 9 of my own. I also have 35
grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren. And I don't want any of
them--or any other children--growing up in a world where we exploit
children in a sexual way.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and end exploitive child
modeling.
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. 404
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 ``Child Modeling Exploitation
Prevention Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The use of children in the production of exploitive
child modeling, including on Internet websites, in
photographs, films, videos, and other visual depictions, is a
form of child abuse that can result in physical and
psychological harm to the children involved.
(2) Exploitive child modeling is different from other,
legitimate, child modeling because exploitive child modeling
involves marketing the child himself or herself in lascivious
positions and acts, rather than actually marketing products
to average American consumers.
(3) The purpose of exploitive child modeling is to satisfy
the demand of pedophiles.
(4) Unlike legitimate child modeling, exploitive child
modeling may involve a direct and personal interaction
between the child model and the pedophile. The pedophile
often knows the child's name and has a way of communicating
with the child.
(5) The interaction between the exploited child model and
the pedophile can lead the child to trust pedophiles and to
believe that it is acceptable and safe to meet with
pedophiles in private.
(6) Over 70 percent of convicted pedophiles have used child
pornography or exploitive child modeling depictions to whet
their sexual appetites. Because children are used in its
production, exploitive child modeling can place the child in
danger of being abducted, abused, or murdered by the
pedophiles who view such depictions.
(7) These exploitive exhibitions of children are
unacceptable by social standards and lead to a direct harm to
the children involved.
SEC. 3. EMPLOYMENT IN EXPLOITIVE CHILD MODELING.
(a) Prohibition on Employment.--Section 12 of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1) No employer may employ a child model in exploitive
child modeling.
``(2) Notwithstanding section 16(a), whoever violates
paragraph (1) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both.
``(3)(A) In this subsection, the term `exploitive child
modeling' means modeling involving the use of a child under
17 years old for financial gain without the purpose of
marketing a product or service other than the image of the
child.
``(B) Such term applies to any such use, regardless of
whether the employment relationship of the child is direct or
indirect, or contractual or noncontractual, or is termed that
of an independent contractor.
``(C) Such term does not apply to an image which, taken as
a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.''.
(b) Oppressive Child Labor.--Section 3(l) of such Act (29
U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) any'' and inserting ``(A) any'';
(2) by striking ``(2) any'' and inserting ``(B) any'';
(3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(l)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Such term includes employment of a minor in violation
of section 12(e)(1).''.
SEC. 4. EXPLOITIVE CHILD MODELING OFFENSE.
(a) In General.--110 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 2252A the following:
``Sec. 2252B. Exploitive child modeling
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, with
the intent to make a financial gain thereby--displays or
offers to provide the image of an individual engaged in
exploitive child modeling (as defined in section 12(e) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938) shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
[[Page S2480]]
``(b) Exception.--This section does not apply to an image
which, taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252A
the following:
``2252B. Exploitive child modeling.''.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 405. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve
the loan forgiveness program for child care providers, including
preschool teachers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 406. A bill to provide grants to States and outlying areas to
encourage the States and outlying areas to encourage existing or
establish new statewide coalitions among institutions of higher
education, communities around the institutions, and other relevant
organizations or groups, including anti-drug or anti-alcohol
coalitions, to reduce underage drinking and illicit drug-use by
students, both on and off campus; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 407. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
loan forgiveness for attorneys who represent low-income families or
individuals involved in the family or domestic relations court systems;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 408. A bill to establish a grant program to enable institutions of
higher education to improve schools of education; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 409. A bill to provide loan forgiveness to social workers who work
for child protective agencies; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I join several of my colleagues today to
introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act (HEA). These five bills emphasize a number of
issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality;
loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early
childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking
at our colleges and universities.
The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the
quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained
teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well
educated. That is why I am introducing a bill that would provide $200
million in grants to our schools of education to partner with local
schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most
extensive training available before they enter the classroom.
The Secretary of Education's annual report on teacher quality
reported that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe
that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared
for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the
responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education.
However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of
education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new
bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education,
which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to
train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to
make internal changes by working with other departments at the
university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality
education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the
college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their
schools of education by providing matching funds.
Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high
percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. Our
bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education
receiving these grants would be responsible for following their
graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the
classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially
once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain
in the classroom.
Today, I also would like to introduce, along with Senator Dodd, the
Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act. Our dear friend and
colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had included this legislation in
the last higher education reauthorization bill. We had been working on
this legislation together before Paul's tragic death. I know he cared
deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive
a quality education. He was passionate about that. And, in his memory,
I would like to rename our bill the Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan
Forgiveness Act.
This bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it
benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood
educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to
keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time.
Paul Wellstone knew how important early learning programs are in
preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. Research shows that
children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were
three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and
social skills in early elementary school than children who attended
poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning
programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a bachelor's degree
or an associate's degree or higher--do substantially better.
When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education
programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education
and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined--
especially considering that 11.9 million children younger than age five
spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and
that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more
mothers enter the workforce.
Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working
in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant
strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young
children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a
twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their
training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the
profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the
profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill
would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience
and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that
truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind.
I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West
Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan
forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the
realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child
protective services, and family law experts.
Currently, Mr. President, there aren't enough social workers to fill
available jobs in child welfare today. Furthermore, the number of
social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the
average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified
social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis
level.
We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The
wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that
is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's
transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family
dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child
getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family.
Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations
courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of
my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive
[[Page S2481]]
investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200
percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about
$80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford
to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most
dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low-
paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers.
The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts
juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to
spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed
when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or
those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children
involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure
that the interests of these children are taken care of by making
certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf.
By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the
child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and
dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family
law.
Finally, I am introducing a bill today with my friend and colleague
from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, that would help address an
epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking, binge drinking, and drug-
related problems on college and university campuses across the United
States. Our bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide
partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding
communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and
illicit drug use by students.
According to a study by Boston University, over 1,400 students aged
18-24 died in 1998 from alcohol-related injuries, more than 600,000
students were assaulted by another student, and another 500,000 were
injured unintentionally while under the influence of alcohol. According
to a 1999 Harvard University study, 40 percent of college students are
binge drinkers and according to the Department of Health and Human
Services, nearly 10.5 million current drinkers were under the legal age
of 21, and of these, over 5 million were binge drinkers.
Currently, 28 States, including my home State of Ohio, have
coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug
abuse on our nation's college campuses. They work with the surrounding
communities, including local residents, bar, restaurant and shop
owners, and law enforcement officials, toward a goal of changing the
pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative
alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not
to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and
drug-use.
Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to
promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the
community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives,
there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also
have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will
help our nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of
their time at college. Some of these regulations include the
registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store
and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges,
local communities, and organizations can take.
To help start the expansion of these coalitions, our bill would
provide $50 million in grants. This is an important demonstration
project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people.
It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by
years of complacency and a dismissal tone of--``that's just the way it
is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young
people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this
bill would do.
Next year when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, I encourage my colleagues to join in support of these
initiatives.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bills be printing in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 405
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 ``Paul Wellstone Early
Educator Loan Forgiveness Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1)(A) The first 5 years of a child's life are a time of
momentous change.
(B) Research shows that a child's brain size doubles
between birth and age 3.
(2) New scientific research shows that the electrical
activity of the brain cells actually changes the physical
structure of the brain, and that without a stimulating
environment, a baby's brain suffers.
(3) Research also indicates that there is a connection
between the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical
stimulation young children receive from their early childhood
teachers and caregivers and success in learning, school
readiness, and intellectual growth. There are important
short- and long-term effects of that stimulation on cognition
and social development.
(4) High quality early childhood education correlates with
better language development, mathematics abilities, and
social skills.
(5) 11,900,000 children younger than age 5 spend part of
their time with a child care provider other than a parent. By
2000, 64 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds were enrolled in some
type of preschool program. Demand for child care is growing
as more mothers enter the workforce.
(6) Good quality child care, in a healthy and safe
environment, with trained, caring providers who provide age-
appropriate, developmentally appropriate, and effective
activities, helps children grow and thrive. Recent research
shows that most child care needs significant improvement.
(7) Good quality child care depends largely on the
provider, yet providers of child care earn on average $7.86
per hour, or $16,350 per year. Such earnings cause high
annual turnover, up to 31 percent of the staff in some child
care programs. High turnover affects the overall quality of a
child care program and causes anxiety for children.
(8) Children attending lower quality child care programs
and child care programs with high staff turnover are less
competent in language and social development than other
children.
(9) The quality of child care is primarily related to high
staff-to-child ratios, staff education, professional
development, and administrators' prior experience. In
addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor, mediocre,
and good quality child care programs, the most important of
which are teacher wages, education, and specialized training.
(10) Each State requires kindergarten teachers to hold at
least a bachelor's degree and certificate in early childhood
education. Only 20 States and the District of Columbia
require teachers in prekindergarten programs to satisfy those
requirements. Thirty States allow caregivers with no previous
training to work in child care programs.
SEC. 3. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS.
Section 428K of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1078-11) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 428K. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the
early child care profession; and
``(2) to keep more highly trained child care providers in
the early child care field for longer periods of time.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility'
means a facility, including a home, that--
``(A) provides child care services; and
``(B) meets applicable State or local government licensing,
certification, approval, or registration requirements, if
any.
``(2) Child care services.--The term `child care services'
means activities and services provided for the education and
care of children from birth through age 5 by an individual
who has a degree in early childhood education, including a
preschool teacher.
``(3) Degree.--The term `degree' means an associate's or
bachelor's degree awarded by an institution of higher
education.
``(4) Early childhood education.--The term `early childhood
education' means education in the area of early child
development and education, or any other educational area
related to early child development and education or child
care, that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(5) Eligible preschool program provider.--The term
`eligible preschool program provider' means a preschool
program provider serving children younger than the age of
compulsory school attendance in the State that is--
``(A) a public or private school;
``(B) a provider that is supported, sponsored, supervised,
or administered by a local educational agency;
``(C) a Head Start agency designated under the Head Start
Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
``(D) a nonprofit or community-based organization; or
``(E) a licensed child care center or family child care
provider.
[[Page S2482]]
``(6) Institution of higher education.--Notwithstanding
section 102, the term `institution of higher education' has
the meaning given the term in section 101.
``(7) Preschool teacher.--The term `preschool teacher'
means an individual--
``(A) who has received at least an associate's degree in
early childhood education and who is working toward or who
has already received a bachelor's degree in early childhood
education; and
``(B) who works for an eligible preschool program provider
supporting the children's cognitive, social, emotional, and
physical development to prepare the children for the
transition to kindergarten.
``(c) Loan Forgiveness.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a program of
assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to subsection (d),
a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under this part, part D
(excluding loans made under sections 428B and 428C or
comparable loans made under part D), or part E for any new
borrower after the date of enactment of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998, who--
``(A) receives a degree in early childhood education;
``(B) obtains employment in a child care facility, such as
employment as a preschool teacher; and
``(C) has been employed full time, for the 2 consecutive
years preceding the year for which the determination is made,
as a provider of child care services in a child care facility
in a low-income community.
``(2) Low-income community.--In this subsection, the term
`low-income community' means a community in which 70 percent
of households earn less than 85 percent of the State median
household income.
``(3) Award basis; priority.--
``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan
repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first-
served basis and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year
to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this
section for the preceding fiscal year.
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section.
``(d) Loan Repayment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the
obligation to repay--
``(A) after the second consecutive year of employment
described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (c)(1),
20 percent of the total amount of all loans described in
subsection (c)(1) and made after the date of enactment of the
Higher Education Amendments of 1998, to a student;
``(B) after the third consecutive year of such employment,
20 percent of the total amount of all such loans; and
``(C) after each of the fourth and fifth consecutive years
of such employment, 30 percent of the total amount of all
such loans.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a
loan made, insured, or guaranteed under this part, part D, or
part E.
``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the
Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate
amount of interest on such loan that accrues for such year
shall be repaid by the Secretary.
``(4) Special rule.--In the case in which a student
borrower who is not participating in loan repayment pursuant
to this section returns to an institution of higher education
after graduation from an institution of higher education for
the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood
education, the Secretary is authorized to assume the
obligation to repay the total amount of loans described in
subsection (c)(1) and incurred for a maximum of 2 academic
years in returning to the institution of higher education for
the purpose of obtaining the degree in early childhood
education. Such loans shall only be repaid for borrowers who
qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions of this
section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (1).
``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.--
No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a
benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of
the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12601 et seq.).
``(e) Repayment to Eligible Lenders and Holders.--The
Secretary shall pay to each eligible lender or holder for
each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of
the lender's or holder's loans that are subject to repayment
pursuant to this section for such year.
``(f) Application for Repayment.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan
repayment under this section shall submit a complete and
accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for
loan repayment under this section after completing each of
the second through the fifth consecutive years of qualifying
employment described in subsection (d)(1). The borrower shall
receive forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment
described in subsection (d)(1) unless the borrower is in
deferment while so engaged.
``(g) Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or
contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of
the program assisted under this section on the field of early
childhood education.
``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described
in paragraph (1) shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this
subsection shall--
``(A) determine the number of individuals who were
encouraged by the program assisted under this section to
pursue early childhood education;
``(B) determine the number of individuals who remain
employed in a child care facility as a result of
participation in the program;
``(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the
program;
``(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of the program in
improving the quality of--
``(i) early childhood education; and
``(ii) child care services;
``(E) identify the reasons why participants in the program
have chosen to take part in the program;
``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in
the program who received an associate's degree and the number
of such individuals who received a bachelor's degree; and
``(G) identify the number of years each individual
participated in the program.
``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary
shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress such
interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this
subsection as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, and
shall prepare and so submit a final report regarding the
evaluation by January 1, 2007.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.
S. 406
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 ``Communities Combating
College Drinking and Drug Use Act''.
SEC 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Alcohol is by far the drug most widely used and abused
by young people in the United States.
(2)(A) In 2003, it is illegal for youths under the age of
21 to purchase alcohol in all of the 50 States and the
District of Columbia, and illicit drugs remain illegal.
(B) According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, on
average, young people begin drinking at about age 13.
However, some start even younger. By the time young people
are high school seniors, more than 80 percent have used
alcohol and approximately 64 percent have been drunk.
(C) When adolescents move on to college, they bring their
drinking habits with them. According to a 1993-1997 Harvard
School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 40 percent of
college students are binge drinkers.
(D) According to the Department of Health and Human
Services, in 1998, 10,400,000 current drinkers were under
legal age (age 12-21) and of these, 5,100,000 were binge
drinkers, including 2,300,000 heavy drinkers.
(E) Among 10th graders the perceived harmfulness of
regularly taking LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is 68.8
percent, and among 8th graders the perceived harmfulness is
52.9 percent, according to the 2001 Monitoring the Future
Study (MTF) funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
(F) Only 45.7 percent of 12th graders perceived a great
risk in trying MDMA (ecstasy) once or twice.
(G) The perceived availability of crack and cocaine among
10th graders was thought of as easy or fairly easy by 31
percent of 10th graders.
(3)(A) Underage drinking particularly impacts institutions
of higher education.
(B) In 1999, Harvard University's School of Public Health
College Alcohol Study surveyed 119 colleges and found that
students who were binge drinkers in high school were 3 times
more likely to binge drink in college.
(C) According to a March 2002 article published in the
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, a study conducted by the
Social and Behavioral Sciences Department of the Boston
University School of Public Health reported that 1998 and
1999 studies show over 2,000,000 of the 8,000,000 college
students in the United States drove under the influence of
alcohol, over 500,000 were unintentionally injured while
under the influence of alcohol, and over 600,000 were hit or
assaulted by another student who had been drinking.
(D) According to the same Boston University study, it is
estimated that over 1,400 students aged 18-24 and enrolled in
2-year and 4-year colleges died in 1998 from alcohol-related
unintentional injuries.
(E) More than 600,000 students between the ages of 18 and
24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking,
and another 500,000 students are unintentionally injured
under the influence of alcohol.
(F) More than 70,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24
are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape,
more than 400,000 students reported having unprotected sex,
and more than 100,000 students reported having been too
intoxicated to know if they consented to having sex,
according to the Boston University study.
[[Page S2483]]
(4)(A) Longstanding cultural influences perpetuate student
patterns of drinking.
(B) Of frequent binge drinkers, 73 percent of males and 68
percent of females cited drinking to get drunk as an
important reason for drinking according to ``Binge Drinking
on Campus: Results of a National Study'', from Harvard School
of Public Health.
(C) The proportion of college students who drink varies
depending on where they live. Drinking rates are highest in
fraternities and sororities, followed by on-campus housing.
Students who live independently offsite (e.g., in apartments)
drink less, while commuting students who live with their
families drink the least.
(D) Institutions of higher education in places with strict
laws such as keg registration, prohibitions on happy hours,
and open container in public bans, which restrict the volume
of alcohol sold or consumed, displayed lower rates of
consumption and binge drinking among underage students.
(E) A 2000 report by the Department of Health and Human
Services, entitled ``Healthy People 2010'', observes that
``The perception that alcohol use is socially acceptable
correlates with the fact that more than 80 percent of
American youth consume alcohol before their 21st birthday,
whereas the lack of social acceptance of other drugs
correlates with comparatively low rates of use. Similarly,
widespread societal expectations that young persons will
engage in binge drinking may encourage this highly dangerous
form of alcohol consumption.''.
(F) Mutually reinforcing interventions between the college
and surrounding community can change the broader environment
and help reduce alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems
over the long term.
(5)(A) The use of illicit drugs threatens the lives and
well-being of students at institutions of higher education.
(B) According to the working paper, ``Alcohol and Marijuana
Use Among College Students: Economic Complements or
Substitutes'', for the National Bureau of Economic Research,
alcohol and marijuana are economic complements, meaning that
as the use of alcohol goes down on campuses, it is expected
that marijuana will as well, or that as marijuana usage
falls, so will alcohol usage.
(C) The annual prevalence of the use of an illicit drug at
institutions of higher education is 36 percent. The annual
marijuana use is 34 percent. The annual use of cocaine and
LSD is 4.8 percent. The annual use of heroin is 4.5 percent.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Binge drinking.--The term ``binge drinking'' means the
consumption of 5 or more drinks on any 1 occasion.
(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(3) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
(6) Statewide coalition.--The term ``statewide coalition''
means a coalition that--
(A) includes--
(i) the entity a State designates to apply for a grant
under this Act and to administer the grant funds; and
(i)(I) institutions of higher education within that State;
and
(II) a nonprofit group, a community anti-drug or anti-
alcohol coalition, or another substance abuse prevention
group within the State; and
(B) works toward lowering the drug and alcohol abuse rate
at not fewer than 50 percent of the institutions of higher
education throughout the State and in the communities
surrounding the campuses of the institutions.
(7) Surrounding community.--The term ``surrounding
community'' means the community--
(A) which surrounds an institution of higher education
participating in a statewide coalition;
(B) where the students from the institution of higher
education take part in the community; and
(C) where students from the institution of higher education
live in off-campus housing.
SEC. 4. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to encourage States,
institutions of higher education, local communities,
nonprofit groups, including community anti-drug or anti-
alcohol coalitions, and other substance abuse groups within
the State to enhance existing or, where none exist, to
establish new statewide coalitions to reduce the usage of
drugs and alcohol by college students both on campus and in
the surrounding community at large.
SEC. 5. GRANTS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
(b) Grants to States.--
(1) Allotments.--
(A) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection
(a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make grants
according to allotments under subparagraph (B) to States
having applications approved under subsection (c) to pay the
cost of carrying out the activities described in the
application.
(B) Determination of allotments.--
(i) Reservation of funds.--From the total amount
appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve--
(I) one-half of 1 percent for allotments to the outlying
areas, to be distributed among those outlying areas on the
basis of their relative need for assistance under this Act,
as determined by the Secretary, to carry out the purpose of
this Act; and
(II) one-half of 1 percent for the Secretary of the
Interior for programs under this Act for schools operated or
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(ii) State allotments.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year that remain after reserving
funds under clause (i), the Secretary shall allot to each
State an amount that bears the same relation to such
remainder as the population of the State bears to the
population of all States, as determined by the 2000 decennial
census.
(2) Matching funds required.--Each State receiving a grant
under this Act shall contribute matching funds, from non-
Federal sources, toward the cost of the activities described
in the application, in an amount equal to--
(A) 100 percent of the Federal funds received under the
grant, in the case of a State supporting a new statewide
coalition; and
(B) 50 percent of the Federal funds received under the
grant, in the case of a State supporting a statewide
coalition that was in existence on the day preceding the date
of enactment of this Act.
(3) Administrative costs.--Each State receiving a grant
under this section may expend not more than 25 percent of the
grant funds for administrative costs.
(c) State Applications.--
(1) In general.--For a State to be eligible to receive a
grant under this part, the State shall submit an application
to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary shall reasonably require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under this
section shall include the following:
(A) A description of how the State will work to enhance
existing, or where none exists, to build a statewide
coalition in cooperation with--
(i) not fewer than 50 percent of the institutions of higher
education within the State;
(ii) local communities;
(iii) nonprofit groups, community anti-drug or anti-alcohol
coalitions; and
(iv) other substance abuse prevention groups within the
State.
(B) A description of how the State intends to ensure that
the statewide coalition is actually implementing the purpose
of this Act and moving toward the achievement indicators
described in subsection (d).
(C) A list of the members of the statewide coalition or
interested parties.
(d) Accountability.--On the date on which the Secretary
first publishes a notice in the Federal Register soliciting
applications for grants under this section, the Secretary
shall include in the notice achievement indicators for the
program assisted under this section. The achievement
indicators shall be designed--
(1) to measure the impact that the statewide coalitions
assisted under this Act are having on the institutions of
higher education and the surrounding communities, including
changes in the number of alcohol or drug-related incidents of
any kind (including violations, physical assaults, sexual
assaults, reports of intimidation, disruptions of school
functions, disruptions of student studies, illnesses, or
deaths);
(2) to measure the quality and accessibility of the
programs or information offered by the statewide coalitions;
and
(3) to provide such other measures of program impact as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
S. 407
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) Across the United States, family, juvenile, and
domestic relations courts experience shortages of qualified
attorneys to represent the interests of men, women, and
children involved in their court systems.
(2) The Constitution of the United States provides that
everyone charged with a crime is entitled to adequate
counsel.
(3) In 1967, the Supreme Court held, for the first time,
that children were persons under the provisions of the 14th
amendment to the Constitution relating to due process, and
entitled to certain constitutional rights.
(4) In the case of In re Gault (387 U.S. 1), the Supreme
Court held that juveniles are entitled to notice of the
charges against them, legal counsel, questioning of
witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination in a
hearing that could result in commitment to an institution.
(5) Studies have indicated that many juveniles do not
receive the due process protections to which they are
entitled. More importantly, they frequently do not receive
effective assistance of legal counsel.
(6) Lawyers who represent juveniles often labor under
enormous caseloads with little training or support staff.
[[Page S2484]]
(7) Public defenders who represent juveniles have, on
average, more than 500 cases per year, with more than 300 of
those cases being juvenile cases.
(8) Public defenders often lack specialized training in
representing juveniles. Approximately one-half of public
defender offices do not even have a section devoted to
juvenile delinquency practice in their office training
manuals.
(9) Due to relatively low wages, there is a nationwide
shortage of family law attorneys willing to represent
juveniles.
(10) The shortage of family law attorneys results in a
severe, disproportionate, and negative impact upon children,
impoverished parents, and victims of domestic violence.
(11) Children involved in family court cases are assigned
attorneys to protect their interests. Adults are entitled to
representation by attorneys. The lack of available
representation by family law attorneys causes children to
spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or
postponed due to lack of appropriate representation. Victims
of domestic violence seeking protection from their abusers
often will remain in the abusive situation, choose to
represent themselves, or wait until an attorney becomes
available, all of which risk their personal safety.
(12) In 1995, 3,100,000 children were reported to child
protection agencies as being abused or neglected, which is
about double the number reported in 1984. Of these, 996,000
children were confirmed after investigation to be abused or
neglected. A 1996 study by the Department of Health and Human
Services found that the number of children seriously injured
nearly quadrupled between 1986 and 1993 from 141,700 to
565,000.
(13) As of 1995 year-end, about 494,000 children were in
foster care, a considerable rise from the estimated 280,000
children in foster care at the end of 1986. Most of these
children are in foster care because of abuse, neglect, or
abandonment by their parents. Many are also placed in foster
care due to a court order during a child protection case.
(14) Some estimates suggest that in 70 percent of homes
where there is domestic violence, there is also child abuse.
(15) Children who witness domestic violence can also
develop posttraumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem,
anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and destructive
behavior that can last through adulthood, limiting an
individual's ability to achieve academically, socially, and
on the job. However, early intervention and education can
help prevent further danger to children.
(16) Continued adjournment forces victims to repeatedly
confront their abusers in court. This not only increases the
risk of retribution, but also the chance that the victim will
abandon the process because of the burden.
(17) Between 1984 and 1994 there was a 65 percent increase
in domestic relations cases and a 59 percent increase in the
number of juvenile cases.
(18) The caseload for child abuse in New York State alone
has increased by more than 300 percent between 1984 and 1988.
(19) Judges in Chicago hear on average 1,700 delinquency
cases per month, and in Los Angeles judges for juvenile cases
have about 10 minutes to devote to each case.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to encourage attorneys to enter the field of family
law, juvenile law, or domestic relations law;
(2) to increase the number of attorneys who will represent
low-income families and individuals, and who are trained and
educated in such field; and
(3) to keep more highly trained family law, juvenile law,
and domestic relations attorneys in this field of law for
longer periods of time.
SEC. 3. LOAN FORGIVENESS.
Part B of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
428K (20 U.S.C. 1078-11) the following:
``SEC. 428L. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR FAMILY LAW, JUVENILE LAW,
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS ATTORNEYS WHO WORK IN
THE DEFENSE OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES,
INDIVIDUALS, OR CHILDREN.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible loan.--The term `eligible loan' means a loan
made, insured, or guaranteed under this part or part D
(excluding loans made under section 428B or 428C, or
comparable loans made under part D) for attendance at a law
school.
``(2) Family law or domestic relations attorney.--The term
`family law or domestic relations attorney' means an attorney
who works in the field of family law or domestic relations,
including juvenile justice, truancy, child abuse or neglect,
adoption, domestic relations, child support, paternity, and
other areas which fall under the field of family law or
domestic relations law as determined by State law.
``(3) Highly qualified attorney.--The term `highly
qualified attorney' means an attorney who has at least 2
consecutive years of experience in the field of family or
domestic relations law serving as a representative of low-
income families or minors.
``(b) Demonstration Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a
demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay
eligible loans for any new borrower after the date of
enactment of this section, who--
``(A) obtains a Juris Doctorate (JD), and takes at least 1
law school class in family law, juvenile law, domestic
relations law, or some other class that the Secretary
determines equivalent to any such class pursuant to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary; and
``(B) has worked full-time for a State or local government
entity, or a nonprofit private entity, as a family law or
domestic relations attorney on behalf of low-income
individuals in the family or domestic relations court system
for 2 consecutive years immediately preceding the year for
which the determination was made.
``(2) Award basis.--Loan repayment under this section shall
be on a first-come, first-served basis and subject to the
availability of appropriations.
``(3) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year
to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this
section for the preceding fiscal year.
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section.
``(c) Loan Repayment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the
obligation to repay--
``(A) after the third consecutive year of employment
described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(1), 20
percent of the total amount of all eligible loans;
``(B) after the fourth consecutive year of such employment,
30 percent of the total amount of all eligible loans; and
``(C) after the fifth consecutive year of such employment,
50 percent of the total amount of all eligible loans.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a
loan made under this part or part D.
``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the
Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate
amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year
shall be repaid by the Secretary.
``(4) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.--
No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a
benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of
the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12601 et seq.).
``(d) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall
pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an
amount equal to the aggregate amount of eligible loans which
are subject to repayment pursuant to this section for such
year.
``(e) Application for Repayment.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan
repayment under this section shall submit a complete and
accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for
loan repayment under this section after completing each year
of qualifying employment. The borrower shall receive
forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment unless the
borrower is in deferment while so engaged.
``(f) Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or
contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of
the demonstration program assisted under this section on the
field of family and domestic relations law.
``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described
in this section shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this
subsection shall determine whether the loan forgiveness
program assisted under this section--
``(A) has increased the number of highly qualified
attorneys;
``(B) has contributed to increased time on the job for
family law or domestic relations attorneys, as measured by--
``(i) the length of time family law or domestic relations
attorneys receiving loan forgiveness under this section have
worked in the family law or domestic relations field; and
``(ii) the length of time family law or domestic relations
attorneys continue to work in such field after the attorneys
meet the requirements for loan forgiveness under this
section;
``(C) has increased the experience and the quality of
family law and domestic relations attorneys; and
``(D) has contributed to better family outcomes, as
determined after consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and the Attorney General.
``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary
shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress such
interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this
section as the Secretary determines appropriate, and shall
prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation
by September 30, 2005.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.
S. 408
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S2485]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ready To Educate All
Children Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) An estimated 2,000,000 new teachers will be needed over
the next decade.
(2) Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, States must
recruit highly qualified teachers by 2006, yet schools in
rural areas and high poverty schools have trouble attracting
and retaining such teachers.
(3) A 2000 study by the Education Trust reports that high
poverty schools are twice as likely not to have teachers
certified in the fields in which they teach as schools that
are not high poverty schools, which highlights that high
poverty schools will need special help to meet the goals of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
(4) If the Nation is to improve student achievement and
success in school, the United States must encourage and
support the training and development of our Nation's
teachers, who are the single most important in-school
influence on student learning.
(5) A majority of graduates of schools of education believe
that traditional teacher preparation programs left them ill
prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom.
(6) Fewer than 36 percent of new teachers feel very well
prepared to implement curriculum and performance standards.
(7) Highly qualified teachers are more effective in
impacting student academic achievement because such teachers
have high verbal abilities, high content knowledge, and an
enhanced ability to know how to teach the content using
appropriate pedagogical strategies.
(8) The difference in annual student achievement growth
between having an effective and ineffective teacher can be
more than 1 grade level of achievement in academic
performance.
(9) Studies have consistently documented the important
connection between a teacher's verbal and cognitive abilities
and student achievement.
(10) Research has shown that there is a positive effect on
student achievement when students are taught by teachers with
a strong subject-matter background.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide
grants to teacher preparation programs to better prepare
teachers to educate all children.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Beginning teacher.--The term ``beginning teacher''
means a highly qualified teacher who has taught for not more
than 3 years.
(2) Core academic subjects.--The term ``core academic
subjects'' means--
(A) mathematics;
(B) science;
(C) reading (or language arts) and English;
(D) social studies, including history, civics, political
science, government, geography, and economics;
(E) foreign languages; and
(F) fine arts, including music, dance, drama, and the
visual arts.
(3) High poverty local educational agency.--The term ``high
poverty local educational agency'' means a local educational
agency for which the number of children who are served by the
agency, aged 5 though 17, and from families with incomes
below the poverty line--
(A) is not less than 40 percent of the number of all
children served by the agency; or
(B) is more than 15,000.
(4) High poverty school.--The term ``high poverty school''
means an elementary school or secondary school that serves a
high number or percentage of children from families with
incomes below the poverty line.
(5) Highly qualified.--The term ``highly qualified'' has
the meaning given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(6) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education''--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 101(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); and
(B) if such an institution prepares teachers and receives
Federal funds, means such an institution that--
(i) is in full compliance with the requirements of section
207 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1027); and
(ii) does not have a teacher preparation program identified
by a State as low-performing.
(7) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(8) Local partner.--The term ``local partner'' means a high
poverty local educational agency or a high poverty school.
(9) Mentoring.--The term ``mentoring'' means activities
that consist of structured guidance and regular and ongoing
support for beginning teachers.
(10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants on a competitive basis to institutions of higher
education to establish a partnership with a local partner
to--
(1) establish a clinically-based elementary school or
secondary school teacher training program; or
(2) enhance such institution's clinically-based elementary
school or secondary school teacher training program.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--An institution of higher education that
desires to receive a grant under subsection (a) shall submit
an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
(2) Development.--The institution of higher education shall
develop the application in collaboration with 1 or more local
partners.
(3) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of any shortages in the State, where the
institution of higher education is located, of highly
qualified teachers in high poverty schools in core academic
subjects;
(B) an assessment of the needs of beginning teachers in
high poverty schools to be effective in the classroom that
is--
(i) developed with the involvement of the local partner;
and
(ii) based on--
(I) student achievement data in core academic subjects; and
(II) other indicators of the need to fully prepare
beginning teachers;
(C) a description of how the institution of higher
education will use funds made available pursuant to a grant
awarded under this Act to--
(i) improve the quality of the teaching force; and
(ii) decrease the use of out-of-field placement of
teachers;
(D) a description of how the institution of higher
education will align activities assisted under this Act with
challenging State academic content standards and student
academic achievement standards, and State assessments, by
setting numerical, annual improvement goals;
(E) a plan, developed with the extensive participation of
the local partner, for addressing long-term teacher
recruitment, retention, professional development, and
mentoring needs;
(F) a description of how the institution of higher
education will assist local educational agencies in
implementing effective and sustained mentoring and other
professional development activities for beginning teachers;
(G) a description of how the institution of higher
education will work with individuals who successfully
complete a teacher education program to become certified or
licensed; and
(H) a description of how the institution of higher
education will prepare teachers to succeed in the classroom.
(c) Approval.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve an application
submitted pursuant to subsection (a) if the application meets
the requirements of this section and holds reasonable promise
of achieving the purpose of this Act.
(2) Equitable distribution.--To the extent practicable, the
Secretary shall ensure an equitable geographic distribution
of grants under this section among the regions of the United
States.
(3) Duration of grants.--The Secretary is authorized to
make grants under this section for a period of 5 years. At
the end of the 5-year period, the grant recipient may apply
for an additional grant under this section.
(d) Uses of Funds.--
(1) Mandatory uses.--An institution of higher education
that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant
funds to--
(A) establish a partnership with a local partner to
establish, or enhance an existing, clinically-based
elementary school or secondary school teacher training
program to better train teachers for challenges in the
classroom;
(B) facilitate a partnership among departments of the
institution to ensure that future teachers are prepared to
teach; and
(C) implement a project-based assessment that facilitates
the program evaluation developed under subsection (f) and
that assesses the impact of the activities undertaken with
grant funds awarded under this Act on achieving the purpose
of this Act, as well as on institutional policies and
practices.
(2) Additional activities.--An institution of higher
education that receives a grant under this section shall use
the grant funds for not less than 3 of the following
activities:
(A) The enhancement of high caliber teaching, including--
(i) enabling faculty to spend additional time in smaller
class settings teaching students pursuing teaching degrees;
(ii) providing--
(I) summer school teaching opportunities for students
pursuing teaching degrees;
(II) additional salary for faculty members who serve as
advisors to students pursuing teaching degrees; or
(III) stipends for students pursuing teaching degrees.
(B) Opportunities to develop new pedagogical approaches to
teaching, including a focus on content knowledge in academic
areas such as mathematics, science, foreign language
development, history, political science, and special
education.
(C) Creation of multidisciplinary courses or programs that
formalize collaborations for the purpose of improved student
instruction.
[[Page S2486]]
(D) Expansion of innovative mentoring or tutoring programs
proven to enhance recruitment of students pursuing teaching
degrees or persistence in obtaining a teaching degree.
(E) Improvement of undergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education for nonmajors,
including teacher education majors.
(e) Matching Funds.--Each institution of higher education
that receives a grant under this section shall demonstrate a
financial commitment to such institution's school of
education by contributing, either directly or through private
contributions, non-Federal matching funds equal to 20 percent
of the amount of the grant.
(f) Assessment, Evaluation, and Dissemination of
Information.--
(1) Program evaluation.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall award not
less than 1 grant or contract to an independent evaluative
organization to--
(A) develop metrics for measuring the impact of the
activities authorized under this section on--
(i) the number of students enrolled in education classes;
(ii) academic achievement of students pursuing teaching
degrees, including quantifiable measurements of students'
mastery of content and skills, such as students' grade point
averages;
(iii) persistence in completing a teaching degree,
including students who transfer from departments of education
to programs in other academic disciplines; and
(iv) placement during the 2 years after degree completion
in public schools and an evaluation of the teachers'
performance;
(B) conduct an evaluation of the impacts of the activities
authorized under this section, including a comparison of the
funded projects to identify best practices with respect to
achieving the purpose of this Act.
(2) Dissemination of information.--The Secretary shall
disseminate, biannually, information on the activities and
the results of the projects assisted under this section,
including best practices, to institutions of higher education
that receive a grant under this section and other interested
institutions of higher education.
(g) Student Loan Eligibility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a student who participates in a clinically-
based teacher training program funded under this Act shall be
eligible for student assistance under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) during such
student's fifth year of a program of study for obtaining a
teaching degree, if the fifth year of the program of study is
required under such clinically-based program in order for
students to obtain the teaching degree.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
S. 409
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) Approximately 3,000,000 reports of child abuse and
neglect must be investigated each year.
(2) Approximately 1,000,000 of these reports are confirmed
and require ongoing intervention.
(3) On any given day in the United States, more than
500,000 children are being served outside their homes by the
child welfare system.
(4) These children are served in more than 150,000 foster
homes and more than 5,000 residential programs.
(5) The child welfare workforce crisis has developed as the
result of the following 3 major factors:
(A) Overall low levels of unemployment and the resulting
increase in competition for workers in all sectors of the
economy.
(B) The increasing numbers of children and families needing
service coupled with the decreasing numbers of workers in the
employment pool.
(C) The relatively low pay and difficult working conditions
that exist in many child welfare agencies.
(6) The vacancy rate in State child welfare agencies is 8.1
percent, and 14.3 percent for private agencies.
(7) The overall turnover rate in child welfare agencies has
doubled since 1991, to 13.9 percent in public agencies and to
46.5 percent in private agencies.
(8) The child welfare workforce crisis is real and is
already compromising the ability of the child welfare system
to effectively provide essential services to its children and
families. In addition, analysis of trends indicates that the
situation will worsen over the next decade. It is clear that
steps must be taken now to encourage more workers to enter
the child welfare services field and to improve the salaries,
working conditions, and training of workers who provide these
critically important services.
SEC. 2. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD WELFARE WORKERS.
(a) Guaranteed Student Loans.--Part B of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after
section 428K (20 U.S.C. 1078-11) the following:
``SEC. 428L. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD WELFARE WORKERS.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section--
``(1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the
child welfare profession; and
``(2) to keep more highly trained child welfare workers in
the child welfare field for longer periods of time.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Child welfare services.--The term `child welfare
services' has the meaning given the term in section 425 of
the Social Security Act.
``(2) Child welfare agency.--The term `child welfare
agency' means the State agency responsible for administering
subpart 1 of part B of title IV of the Social Security Act
and any public or private agency under contract with the
State agency to provide child welfare services.
``(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 101.
``(4) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given the
term in section 1101(a)(1) of the Social Security Act for
purposes of title IV of such Act, and includes an Indian
tribe.
``(c) Demonstration Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a
demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay,
pursuant to subsection (d), a loan made, insured, or
guaranteed under this part or part D (excluding loans made
under sections 428B and 428C, or comparable loans made under
part D) for any new borrower after the date of enactment of
this section, who--
``(A) obtains a bachelor's or master's degree in social
work;
``(B) obtains employment in public or private child welfare
services; and
``(C) has worked full time as a social worker for 2
consecutive years preceding the year for which the
determination is made.
``(2) Award basis; priority.--
``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan
repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first-
served basis and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year
to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this
section for the preceding fiscal year.
``(3) Outreach.--The Secretary shall post a notice on a
Department Internet web site regarding the availability of
loan repayment under this section, and shall notify
institutions of higher education regarding the availability
of loan repayment under this section.
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section.
``(d) Loan Repayment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the
obligation to repay--
``(A) after the third consecutive year of employment
described in subsection (c)(1)(C), 20 percent of the total
amount of all loans made under this part or part D (excluding
loans made under section 428B or 428C, or comparable loans
made under part D) for any new borrower after the date of
enactment of this section;
``(B) after the fourth consecutive year of such employment,
30 percent of the total amount of such loans; and
``(C) after the fifth consecutive year of such employment,
50 percent of the total amount of such loans.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a
loan made under this part or part D.
``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the
Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate
amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year
shall be repaid by the Secretary.
``(4) Special rule.--In the case of a student borrower not
participating in loan repayment pursuant to this section who
returns to an institution of higher education after
graduation from an institution of higher education for the
purpose of obtaining a degree described in subsection
(c)(1)(A), the Secretary is authorized to assume the
obligation to repay the total amount of loans made under this
part or part D incurred for a maximum of 2 academic years in
returning to an institution of higher education for the
purpose of obtaining such a degree. Such loans shall only be
repaid for borrowers who qualify for loan repayment pursuant
to the provisions of this section, and shall be repaid in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1).
``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.--
No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a
benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of
the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12601 et seq.).
``(e) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall
pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an
amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are
subject to repayment pursuant to this section for such year.
``(f) Application for Repayment.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan
repayment under this section shall submit a complete and
accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for
loan repayment under this
[[Page S2487]]
section after completing each year of qualifying employment.
The borrower shall receive forbearance while engaged in
qualifying employment unless the borrower is in deferment
while so engaged.
``(g) Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or
contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of
the demonstration program assisted under this section on the
field of child welfare services.
``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described
in paragraph (1) shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this
subsection shall determine--
``(A) whether the loan forgiveness program has increased
child welfare workers' education in the areas covered by loan
forgiveness;
``(B) whether the loan forgiveness program has contributed
to increased time on the job for child welfare workers as
measured by--
``(i) the length of time child welfare workers receiving
loan forgiveness have worked in the child welfare field; and
``(ii) the length of time such workers continue to work in
such field after the workers meet the requirements for loan
forgiveness under this section; and
``(C) whether the loan forgiveness program has increased
the experience and the quality of child welfare workers and
has contributed to increased performance in the outcomes of
child welfare services in terms of child well-being,
permanency, and safety, as determined after consultation with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary
shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress such
interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this
subsection as the Secretary determines appropriate, and shall
prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation
by September 30, 2005.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 410. A bill to establish the Homeland Intelligence Agency, and for
other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have previously given a statement and a
speech on the floor of the Senate with regard to Mr. Estrada's
nomination. I voted against him in the Judiciary Committee. The
concerns I had included his not answering questions that were put to
him, serious questions, in my judgment--issues about his record and his
temperament.
Today, I wish to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk
about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response, and
then I will talk about six bills I have introduced in this Congress to
improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the
way we do intelligence work here at home.
The first responsibility of any government is to protect its people.
Yet we live in a time when Americans feel extraordinary insecurity. We
are at an elevated level of threat warning. The CIA Director says al-
Qaida is ``resuming the offensive.'' The FBI Director says there are
``al-Qaida cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to
identify.''
In other words, al-Qaida cells are operating here, but we do not know
who they are, where they are, or what they are doing.
Americans are buying plastic sheeting and duct tape in record
amounts. While they are doing everything they can to protect
themselves, they have a right to know that those of us in Government
are doing everything we can to protect them, their homes, their
families, and their children. This is a dangerous time.
But a dangerous time calls for an honest response: This President is
failing the test on homeland security. Homeland security has yielded to
chemical companies that are holding back commonsense steps to secure
chemical plants against horrific explosions. Homeland security is
yielding to bureaucratic inertia that is defending old and outworn ways
of fighting terror.
Today there are huge holes in our borders--one guard for every 5
miles on the Canadian border. There are huge holes at our ports--we are
still inspecting only a fraction of all shipments into the United
States, shipments that could carry nuclear or biological weapons. There
are huge holes in our hometowns--where cops and firefighters do not
have the equipment or the training that they need.
For all these holes, this President has vetoed billions for homeland
security, he is withholding funds that first responders need today, and
he has proposed funding homeland security this year at a level that
even Republican experts like Warren Rudman say is totally inadequate.
We cannot cover the holes in our borders with plastic sheeting. Our
cops and firefighters need reinforcements and new gear, not canned
goods.
In 2000, the President's team talked about the dangers of a hollow
military. At a time when the greatest dangers we face are here at home,
this administration risks creating a hollow homeland defense.
This is happening for a very simple reason. The bare minimum of
homeland security improvements we need--$10 billion more this year--
costs less than half of President Bush's tax cut just for 226,000
millionaires.
I believe it is time to say to this President: Mr. President, please
put our security first. Please set aside $20 billion in tax breaks for
226,000 millionaires, and put homeland security for 290 million
Americans first.
Let me talk a little bit about my work on homeland security since
Congress came back into session. Back in December, I laid out a
comprehensive plan for strengthening our domestic security, from
stopping ID fraud to sharing more information with local police to
improving our cybersecurity. And in the 6 weeks Congress has been in
session so far, I have introduced six bills to strengthen our homeland
security. Each of these bills would make a concrete, tangible
difference in people's lives.
Two bills are focused on empowering people to play a greater role in
homeland security.
First, until this week, most Americans have no better idea how to
respond to a terrorist attack than on September 11. Now the
administration has begun giving out useful information, but we still
don't have enough. We are not being told, for example, how to respond
to chemical or biological attacks. In addition, there is still a
serious question whether people will get the information they need when
they need it, particularly when they are sleeping. Obviously TV and
radio won't help if you are asleep. So I have a bill, which I wrote
with Senator Fritz Hollings, that will create an emergency warning
system to reach everyone--for example, using special phone rings that
could wake people up in the middle of the night.
Second, we want to encourage more people to contribute. People want
to serve, but they feel like they haven't been asked. We should ask.
One way is through the Neighborhood Watch program. Neighborhood Watches
help prevent both terrorism and ordinary crime. We are going to
increase support for these, encourage folks to get involved, with the
goal--the realistic goal--of tripling the number of neighborhood
watches.
Next, I have introduced two bills focused on hardening vulnerable
targets--in other words, taking those targets we know terrorists want
to attack, and transforming them so they will be less vulnerable.
One bill is to do research to enhance building security, to improve
the quality of private security guards and make buildings more
resistant to attack. We know that at the Oklahoma City bombing, 85
percent of the lives might have been saved if the building had been
built with better materials, in a better way. We are still learning
about the World Trade Center collapse. We know we need better
construction and better security around buildings across America.
A fourth bill would require the Government to improve its
cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, we had an attack that crippled a lot of
Government computer systems. There are simple tests we could be doing
to block computer attacks that we are not doing: to ``patch'' holes in
the systems. We need to make that happen.
Fifth, I have introduced a bill to help local law enforcement by
requiring the Government to give security clearances to more police
officers, firefighters, and health officials. They need information to
keep us safe, but too often they are not getting it. This bill would
help make sure they do.
Finally, there is the bill I have introduced today, and that I want
to talk about in some detail. This bill will make fundamental changes
in the way
[[Page S2488]]
we protect Americans against international terrorists operating within
our borders. This bill takes away from the FBI the responsibility to
collect intelligence on foreign terrorist groups operating in America.
And this bill gives that responsibility to a new Homeland Intelligence
Agency. I believe this agency will do a better job protecting our
safety and our basic freedoms. Let me briefly explain why.
There is no question that the FBI is full of dedicated professionals
who are patriots, who serve their country with courage and conviction,
who do all of us proud.
But there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes
before September 11. There was the Phoenix memorandum, a memorandum
about suspicious behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow
up on. There was the Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its
possession a computer full of critical information, yet did not access
the information there. There were even two hijackers who the FBI knew
were threats but did not track and stop.
It is true all this was before September 11. The other day, Director
Mueller told me that my criticisms understated the extent of the FBI's
reforms. Well, I respect Director Mueller, and I look forward to
continuing to talk with him about FBI reform. I have only the best
wishes for his reform efforts.
At the same time, it would be hard to understate the seriousness of
the problems we have seen.
This is not just my view; it is the view of every objective panel to
look at this issue. These panels have raised serious questions about
the FBI's response to terrorism, and in some instances, about the FBI's
capacity to respond to terrorism.
The Markle Task Force commented: ``. . . there is a resistance
ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counter-terrorism information . .
. the FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of
counter-terrorism.''
The Joint Congressional Inquiry noted: The FBI has a ``history of
repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic
intelligence. . . .''
The Brookings Institution went further, stating that ``there are
strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to
conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis.''
And finally, the Gilmore Commission recently said: ``the Bureau's
long standing tradition and organizational culture persuade us that,
even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into
an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks rather
than one dedicated to punishing them.''
I believe the Gilmore Commission reached the right conclusion.
Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI. The FBI is
full of superb public servants. But the reality is that the FBI is also
a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a bureaucracy to resist change.
That is just the reality. It was only in November that the New York
Times reported the FBI's No. 2 official was ``amazed and astounded'' by
the FBI's sluggish response to the terrorist threat.
Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance, there is a more
fundamental problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the
base of the FBI's mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement
and intelligence. These are fundamentally different functions.
Law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people
in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it is about
gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture.
The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an
agency that hires people who want to be law enforcement officers,
trains them to be law enforcement officers, and promotes them for
succeeding as law enforcement officers.
Cases have been run by field offices with little of the central
coordination that is essential to combat national networks of
terrorists. The FBI has regularly kept intelligence within the agency's
walls rather than sharing it with other key players.
Now, the FBI says all this is changing. But with all due respect, the
FBI's reforms are too little and too late. They are not enough, and
because of the nature of the FBI, they cannot ever be enough.
That is why I propose today to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency,
one that would be responsible for collecting foreign intelligence
inside the United States, analyzing that intelligence, and getting it
to the policymakers or first responders who need it. This entity isn't
in the new Department of Homeland Security. It isn't in the newly
announced ``Terrorist Threat Integration Center.'' That's just about
analysis. This is about collection, gathering the intelligence
information to begin with.
I believe this agency will do a better job fighting terrorism because
its sole focus will be intelligence gathering. The inherent conflict
between law enforcement and intelligence will not get in the way of its
work.
I also believe it will do a better job protecting our civil
liberties. While we will not give the new agency any new authorities,
we will place new checks on its ability to collect information about
innocent people. Time and again, we have seen this administration
overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That should stop, and this
proposal will help stop it.
We will require judicial approval before the most secretive and
invasive investigations of religious and political groups. We will
require greater public reporting and more internal auditing. We will
establish a new and independent office of civil liberties within the
new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of
innocent Americans. So at the end of the day, we will help to fulfill
America's promise--that we are safe and free at the same time.
I believe this bill is an important step to making America safer, and
I look forward to working on it with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle in getting this legislation passed.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 411. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a
university transportation center to be known as the ``Southwest Bridge
Research Center''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation that I
believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and
durability of the Nation's highway bridges. Today, with great pleasure
I am introducing the Southwest Bridge Research Center Establishment Act
of 2003.
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center
focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new Southwest Bridge
Research Center is a cooperative effort between New Mexico State
University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center, comprising the
University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The new center
will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies
for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge
safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection.
Our highway 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. Transportation via cars, buses,
and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of
the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and
offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network.
One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges
that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas.
Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over
another.
Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New
England's covered bridges, the well-known Golden Gate Bridge, and the
spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, New Mexico. The fact is,
according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000
highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The
total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120
square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits
of Albuquerque, New Mexico, roughly twice the size of the entire
District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan
Island. The State of Texas leads
[[Page S2489]]
the Nation with over 48,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total.
Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges.
A little known, and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway
bridges is that nearly 84,000, or 14 percent, are considered to be
structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the
FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among
the 50 States. For example, this chart shows some of the States with
some of the highest percentage of deficient bridges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Number of structurally
State Number of structurally deficient
bridges deficient bridges (in
bridges percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma 22,708 7,605 33.5
Missouri 23,604 6,083 25.8
Rhode Island 749 187 25.0
Pennsylvania 22,092 5,418 24.5
South Dakota 6,001 1,398 23.3
Mississippi 16,825 3,694 22.0
Iowa 25,030 5,036 20.1
North Dakota 4,517 871 19.3
Michigan 10,631 2,012 18.9
Louisiana 13,426 2,425 18.1
Alabama 15,641 2,677 17.1
North Carolina 16,991 2,513 14.8
Kansas 25,638 3,465 13.5
Ohio 27,952 3,304 11.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory (NBI) System, December 2001.
Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural
areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its
Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent of rural
bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban
bridges. The report estimates the average cost required to maintain the
existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year.
Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their
age. About one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old,
and an amazing 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,000
of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally
deficient.
I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should
be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local
communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient
bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21.
However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding
to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to
identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or
rehabilitation.
To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress
should also address the need for new technologies to help States
monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and
determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring
technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not
damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State
University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non-
destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway
bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on
their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing
them.
In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel
bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces. This award-winning project was
the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. More
recently, in 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete
bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the
bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque.
NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to
allow studies of instrumentation and data collection.
I ask unanimous consent that two articles describing NMSU's
accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record,
exhibits one and two.
NMSU is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. It has
provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also
developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a
bridge's physical condition.
At the same time, Oklahoma State University leads the Nation in the
development of the Geothermal Smart Bridge System, which uses energy
stored in the earth itself to help keep bridges free of ice and snow.
OSU is also performing cutting edge research on high-performance
structural materials frequently used in bridges including concrete,
steel, and timber.
At the University of Oklahoma, a multidisciplinary team of
researchers is working to develop a ``smart'' vehicle-bridge system
that is expected to reduce the impact of moving trucks on bridge
structures, thereby increasing the lifespan of highway bridges. The UO
team is also expert in the development of high-performance concrete and
of sensors for non-destructive testing.
Of course, the Oklahoma Transportation Center was also heavily
involved last year in the rebuilding of the Interstate 40 bridge over
the Arkansas River near Webbers Falls, OK, after it collapsed when
struck by a barge. The bridge was reopened to traffic only 64 days
after the accident.
This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at these
three universities. All three institutions are widely recognized as
national leaders in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I
believe it is fully appropriate for these three nationally recognized
universities to collaborate in operating the Southwest Bridge Research
Center.
The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to establish and operate the Southwest Bridge Research
Center at New Mexico State University in collaboration with the
Oklahoma Transportation Center. I do believe the three universities
have earned this honor. In fact, in some ways, Congress has already
recognized their fine work of the three centers. For example, the
University of Oklahoma was allotted $3.5 million in TEA-21 for research
work on intelligent stiffeners for bridge stress reduction and Oklahoma
State received $3.5 million for work on the geothermal heat pump smart
bridge program.
I am pleased to have also played a part. At my request, Congress
provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State
University and an additional $250,000 in the current fiscal year.
The specific purpose of the Southwest Bridge Research Center will be
to contribute to improving the performance of the nation's highway
bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number
of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2.
improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges;
3. developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of
bridges; 4. developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge
safety, reliability, and security; and 5. providing training in the
methods of bridge inspection and evaluation.
Building on the three universities' research work, the Southwest
Bridge Research Center will develop a strong educational component,
including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a
cooperative certificate program for training and professional
development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning
will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities.
The bill provides $3 million in funding from the Highway Trust Fund
to operate the center.
New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center
have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving
technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team
is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members
of the team are recognized and respected at the national and
international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing,
monitoring, and evaluation.
I ask all senators to support the designation of a new Southwest
Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the
Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe,
and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into
the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the three
universities and a letter from Rhonda Faught, the Secretary of New
Mexico's State Highway and Transportation Department be printed in the
Record. I also 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:
[[Page S2490]]
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, May 18, 1998]
Sensors Bridge Gap in Communication About Repair Needs
(By Louis Jacobson)
Las Cruces, NM.--Hardly anyone in this burgeoning
southwestern city realizes it, but right behind the Las
Cruces Days Inn is a state-of-the-art experimental bridge. It
isn't very exciting to look at--in fact, a motorist whizzing
under Interstate 10 probably wouldn't notice anything
unusual. But the experiment's sponsors--including the Federal
Highway Administration, the National Science Foundation and
state highway departments--hope that it will eventually
revolutionize the way the Untied States maintains its half-
million aging highway bridges.
Undergirding the Las Cruces ``smart bridge'' is a series of
special sensors. It's not unusual for a bridge to be strung
with mechanical sensors to measure structural stresses,
particularly when a bridge is older and at higher risk of
long-term fatigue. But the Las Cruces sensors are embedded in
fiber-optic cables that--once the experiment is fully
underway--will be able to transmit their readings to bridge
officials in real time. In other words, weary bridges will
soon be able to telephone their weakened conditions directly
to the highway authorities so that bridge engineers can be
dispatched to head off catastrophe.
``We're looking at a very large bridge stock in the U.S.
that's in need of maintenance,'' says Rola Idriss, the civil
engineer at New Mexico State University who is monitoring the
I-10 experiment. ``Our idea was, how can we better inspect
our bridges, how can we better evaluate them and how can we
save money and time? The basic idea was to monitor them from
far away.''
The fiber-optic cables used in the experiment were designed
by the Naval Research Laboratory. First, laser beams etch the
cables' cores with five-millimeter-long internal gauges,
spaced about two to three meters apart. Once the cable is
strung under the bridge and attached with epoxy, engineers
program the system so that light beams careen down the cable
at regular intervals. The degree of the light beams' bend
directly correlates with the degree of bridge stress. If the
results exceed a pre-calibrated bench mark, officials will be
alerted to check for weakness exactly where they need to. The
gauges can also be used to report general traffic patters,
aiding transportation planners as well as bridge inspectors.
So far, the fiber-optic gauges have remained fastened
better than normal wire gauges have, Idriss says. More
important, the fiber simultaneously serves as a data
collector and transmitter. ``It was a very elegant way to get
away from the traditional method of using wires and
installation,'' Idriss says. ``You just hook it to a computer
and then let it cell phone the information home. The beauty
of it is that you don't have to be on the bridge. I could
monitor a bridge in Washington if I wanted to.''
Though the bridge in Las Cruces--which Idriss describes as
an ordinary interstate bridge--was built in the 1970s, it has
already displayed some metal fatigue (a fact that was known
even before the smart bridge experiment was concocted).
``It's not unusual to have that kind of fatigue, but the
bridge is not very old, so you want to know much more about
what's happening,'' she says. ``Now, we need to expand the
capability of the system by collecting from many more
sensors. It currently has 30, but we'd like to double that at
least.''
Idriss--who grew up in a family of engineers in Beirut and
later became the first woman to earn a civil engineering PhD
from New Mexico State--acknowledges that both technical and
economic challenges remain. Her sensors cost about $50 to
$100 each, including the cost of the cable itself. The
benefits, she says, would come from freeing bridge inspectors
from many of their routine and time-consuming duties. At the
same time, highway departments could use their new data to
repair bridges more precisely and cost-efficiently than
today's information sources allow. ``If a fiber-optic gauge
system costs $30,000,'' she says, ``that's still far less
than a typical new bridge, which costs millions.''
Even if that price tag eventually drops, highway officials
who aren't involved in the experiment suggest that the system
will be most appropriate for the minority of bridges that
officials already fret about.
``It seems like this system would be best for bridges that
need special attention,'' says David Hensing, deputy
executive director of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. ``It's probably more
expensive than is necessary for 90 percent of America's
bridges. But for the other 5 or 10 percent, that kind of
instrumentation will get more years of life out of the bridge
and lead to more timely corrective action.''
Bob Reilly, director of cooperative research programs at
the federal Transportation Research Board, which is part of
the National Research Council, concurs. ``I could image it
would be a very useful thing in rare cases, but my guess is
that it's not worth it for all bridges,'' he says.
Richard Livingston, the Federal Highway Administration
official who is supplying Idriss with equipment and grant
money, suggests three types of bridges that are likeliest to
benefit: bridges that are already thought to be structurally
deficient, critical urban bridges that carry economically
vital traffic flows and newer bridge designs with which
engineers have little long-term experience.
California transportation officials have expressed interest
in installing fiber-optic gauges in critical seismic zones.
Closer to home, the Washington area's Woodrow Wilson Bridge--
a clogged and vital drawbridge on the Capital Beltway--could
be among the first to serve as a test site, if Congress
authorizes funding to do so.
``It would be able to help us schedule maintenance
activities in a more cost-effective way,'' says Louis
Triandafilou, a Baltimore-based Federal Highway
Administration official who has been trying to broker the
Wilson Bridge deal. ``The Wilson Bridge is a good one to test
because it's a drawbridge and because it has a very high
traffic count, especially truck traffic, so you can get
information on how the bridge is affected by fatigue and
repetitive stress.''
Given that it often takes four or five professionals a full
week to inspect just one bridge--and considering the big
back-log of bridges to inspect, including some whose crucial
parts aren't easy to reach--the experiment's advocates say
that the benefits of remote sensing can be substantial. ``The
real problem is that no one has ever done a cost-benefit
analysis,'' Livington says. ``It has increased cost, but it
may also have increased benefits.''
____
Exhibit 2
[From the Public Roads magazine, Nov./Dec., 2002]
A Decade of Achievement
(By Richard A. Livingston, Milton Mills, and Morton S. Oskard)
Installation of sensor systems in bridges is increasingly
recognized as important for obtaining information on strains,
temperature, moisture, and other variables. The information
collected from such smart bridges can be used to confirm
design calculations, detect damage, and count traffic, among
other functions.
An example of the sensor systems developed by the Advanced
Research program is the fiber-optic strain gauge based on
Bragg gratings. These gratings consist of alternating zones
of different indexes of refraction. The spacing of the layers
determines a specific wavelength of light that will be
reflected. The technology is the same as that used in the
broadband fiber-optic telecommunications systems now being
installed across the country.
Since the fiber-optic sensor operates with light waves
rather than electrons, it has several advantages over
conventional electronic strain gauges: ruggedness, absence of
drift, and immunity to electromagnetic noise. It permits as
many as 100 gauges to be put on a single fiber as thin as a
human hair. The installation of the gauges is simplified, the
cabling requirement is reduced, and the cost-per-sensor is
lowered.
Possible applications may require networks on the order of
1,000 sensors, or 1 kilosensor. Working under an interagency
agreement with the Naval Research Laboratory, which has
developed many fiber-optic sensors, the Advanced Research
program has demonstrated several applications of sensor
networks for structural monitoring.
The first application, co-funded with the National Science
Foundation (NSF), resulted in the installation of a system of
67 calibrated fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge
on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces, NM. This work was carried
out by New Mexico State University, with Dr. Rola Idriss
as the principal investigator.
``The research has shown the fiber-optic sensors to be a
powerful nondestructive evaluation tool,'' says Idriss.
``Whether retrofitted to an existing structure or built into
a new smart bridge, they can yield a wealth of information
about the structure and the traffic crossing it.''
The installation has generated several types of information
under random traffic loading, including girder deflections,
fundamental vibration frequencies, vehicle speed data, and
traffic flow on an hourly basis. To date, the Las Cruces
project has achieved notable success in its primary purpose
of investigating practical issues in the full-scale
application and regular operation of fiber-optic sensors on
highway structures. The project has been widely covered in
the media and received several awards.
New Mexico State University applied the sensors to the
construction of a new concrete bridge in a project co-funded
by Advanced Research, NSF, and the New Mexico State Highway
and Transportation Department (NMSHTD). The mix design and
curing conditions now being used to make high-performance
concrete structures may produce unexpectedly high
temperatures and stresses during the casting of girders,
possibly leading to cracking and major structural failure.
Obtaining information on the internal conditions is difficult
with conventional temperature or strain gauges because of
their fragility.
Forty fiber-optic long-gauge deformation and temperature
sensors were embedded in the concrete girders of the Rio
Puerco Bridge during casting. These sensors monitored the
prestress forces applied to the steel strands in the precast
concrete components during and after the steam curing period.
One finding was that some design codes considerably
overestimate the actual losses. NMSHTD now is planning to use
sensors routinely in the construction of concrete bridges in
the future. ``Building the sensors into new bridges,'' says
Idriss, ``enables us to evaluate new high-performance
materials and new designs. It also establishes a baseline for
long-term monitoring.''
[[Page S2491]]
Several companies now offer Bragg fiber-optic sensor
systems on a commercial basis. Two States (Hawaii and New
Mexico) have received funding from the FHWA Innovative Bridge
Research and Construction Program. In addition, several other
States are considering installation of these systems on new
or existing bridges. Fiber-optic systems also have been
chosen as the method for measuring expansion in concrete
girders under the lithium treatment evaluation program. All
these developments indicate that fiber-optic sensor systems
have been transferred successfully from Advanced Research to
other FHWA programs.
____
College of Engineering,
Office of the Dean, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, NM, January 8, 2003.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: We are writing to express our
support for your bill to establish a bridge research center
(brc) as a cooperative effort of New Mexico State University
and the Oklahoma Transportation Center (Oklahoma State
University and the University of Oklahoma). NMSU and OTC
desire to work together in a spirit of cooperation as a
University Transportation Center. We are bonded together in a
desire to provide bridge research leadership for our
respective states and the nation.
The purpose of the Bridge Research Center shall be to
contribute at a national level to a systems approach to
improving the overall performance of bridges. The BRC will
emphasize the following:
1. Increase the number of highly skilled individuals
entering the field of transportation.
2. Improve the monitoring of the structural health over the
life of bridges.
3. Develop innovative technologies for bridge testing and
monitoring.
4. Develop technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge
safety, reliability and security.
5. Provide training in the methods for bridge inspection
and evaluation.
The objective of the BRC is to carry out several programs
and activities. Included will be basic and applied research
with products judged by peers or other experts to advance the
body of knowledge for bridges. An educational program that
includes multidisciplinary course work and participation in
bridge research. Finally, an ongoing program of technology
transfer that makes research results available to potential
users in a form that can be implemented.
NMSU and OTC have applied their talents, tools and
techniques to solving technological problems with bridges for
over 30 years. Our team is well established and maintains
cutting-edge expertise. Our team members are recognized and
respected at the national and international levels through
major accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring and
evaluation.
New Mexico State University has agreed to provide the
administrative leadership for the BRC. The research activity
of the BRC will be approximately equally divided between New
Mexico and Oklahoma.
By the signatures of the representatives of each
institution, we pledge our support and commitment to the
partnership known as the Bridge Research Center.
Gorman Gilbert,
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Oklahoma State
University.
Thomas L. Landers,
Associated Dean, University of Oklahoma.
Kenneth R. White,
Interim Dean of Engineering, New Mexico State University.
____
New Mexico State Highway
and Transportation Department,
Santa Fe, NM, January 27, 2003.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: I am writing to express my support
for your bill to establish a Bridge Research Center as a
cooperative effort of New Mexico State University and the
Oklahoma Transportation Center (Oklahoma State University and
the University of Oklahoma). NMSU and OTC desire to provide
bridge research leadership for our Nation. The areas of
leadership include research and development of techniques and
technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures
for ensuring bridge safety and security, and curricula to
train persons in the methods for bridge inspection and
evaluation as one part of increasing the number of highly
skilled individuals entering the field of transportation.
I believe it is important for the Bridge Research Center to
be established as a University Transportation Center. The New
Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department, through
our Research Bureau, will work with New Mexico State
University to ensure a match for the New Mexico portion of
the Bridge Research Center funds.
I appreciate your continued leadership on behalf of
transportation in New Mexico and our Nation.
Sincerely,
Rhonda G. Faught,
Cabinet Secretary.
____
S. 411
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 ``Southwest Bridge Research
Center Establishment Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. BRIDGE RESEARCH CENTER.
Section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(k) Southwest Bridge Research Center.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the university
transportation centers receiving grants under subsections (a)
and (b), the Secretary shall provide grants to New Mexico
State University, in collaboration with the Oklahoma
Transportation Center, to establish and operate a university
transportation center to be known as the `Southwest Bridge
Research Center' (referred to in this subsection as the
`Center').
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Center shall be to
contribute at a national level to a systems approach to
improving the overall performance of bridges, with an
emphasis on--
``(A) increasing the number of highly skilled individuals
entering the field of transportation;
``(B) improving the monitoring of structural health over
the life of bridges;
``(C) developing innovative technologies for bridge testing
and assessment;
``(D) developing technologies and procedures for ensuring
bridge safety, reliability, and security; and
``(E) providing training in the methods for bridge
inspection and evaluation.
``(3) Objectives.--The Center shall carry out the following
programs and activities:
``(A) Basic and applied research, the products of which
shall be judged by peers or other experts in the field to
advance the body of knowledge in transportation.
``(B) An education program that includes multidisciplinary
course work and participation in research.
``(C) An ongoing program of technology transfer that makes
research results available to potential users in a form that
can be implemented.
``(4) Maintenance of effort.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, the institution specified in
paragraph (1) shall enter into an agreement with the
Secretary to ensure that, for each fiscal year after
establishment of the Center, the institution will fund
research activities relating to transportation in an amount
that is at least equal to the average annual amount of funds
expended for the activities for the 2 fiscal years preceding
the fiscal year in which the grant is received.
``(5) Cost sharing.--
``(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activity carried out using funds from a grant provided under
this subsection shall be 50 percent.
``(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of any activity carried out using funds from a grant provided
under this subsection may include funds provided to the
recipient under any of sections 503, 504(b), and 505 of title
23.
``(C) Ongoing programs.--After establishment of the Center,
the institution specified in paragraph (1) shall obligate for
each fiscal year not less than $200,000 in regularly budgeted
institutional funds to support ongoing transportation
research and education programs.
``(6) Program coordination.--
``(A) Coordination.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) coordinate the research, education, training, and
technology transfer activities carried out by the Center;
``(ii) disseminate the results of that research; and
``(iii) establish and operate a clearinghouse for
information derived from that research.
``(B) Annual review and evaluation.--At least annually, and
in accordance with the plan developed under section 508 of
title 23, the Secretary shall review and evaluate each
program carried out by the Center using funds from a grant
provided under this subsection.
``(7) Limitation on availability of funds.--Funds made
available to carry out this subsection shall remain available
for obligation for a period of 2 years after the last day of
the fiscal year for which the funds are authorized.
``(8) Amount of grant.--For each of fiscal years 2004
through 2009, the Secretary shall provide a grant in the
amount of $3,000,000 to the institution specified in
paragraph (1) to carry out this subsection.
``(9) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this subsection
$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Domenici, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 412. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to extend and
modify the reimbursement of State and local funds expended for
emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
[[Page S2492]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 412
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Local Emergency Health
Services Reimbursement Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES
FURNISHED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Section 4723 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (8 U.S.C.
1611 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 4723. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY HEALTH
SERVICES FURNISHED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
``(a) Total Amount Available for Allotment.--There is
appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $1,450,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008, for the purpose of making allotments under this
section to States described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (b). Funds appropriated under the preceding
sentence shall remain available until expended.
``(b) State Allotments.--
``(1) Based on percentage of undocumented aliens.--
``(A) In general.--Out of the amount appropriated under
subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall use
$957,000,000 of such amount to make allotments for each such
fiscal year in accordance with subparagraph (B).
``(B) Formula.--The amount of the allotment for each State
for a fiscal year shall be equal to the product of--
``(i) the total amount available for allotments under this
paragraph for the fiscal year; and
``(ii) the percentage of undocumented aliens residing in
the State with respect to the total number of such aliens
residing in all States, as determined by the Statistics
Division of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as of
January 2003, based on the 2000 decennial census.
``(2) Based on number of undocumented alien apprehension
states.--
``(A) In general.--Out of the amount appropriated under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall use
$493,000,000 of such amount to make allotments for each such
fiscal year for each of the 6 States with the highest number
of undocumented alien apprehensions for such fiscal year.
``(B) Determination of allotments.--The amount of the
allotment for each State described in subparagraph (A) for a
fiscal year shall bear the same ratio to the total amount
available for allotments under this paragraph for the fiscal
year as the ratio of the number of undocumented alien
apprehensions in the State in the fiscal year bears to the
total of such numbers for all such States for such fiscal
year.
``(C) Data.--For purposes of this paragraph, the highest
number of undocumented alien apprehensions for a fiscal year
shall be based on the 4 most recent quarterly apprehension
rates for undocumented aliens in such States, as reported by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed as prohibiting a State that is described in both
of paragraphs (1) and (2) from receiving an allotment under
both paragraphs for a fiscal year.
``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Authority to make payments.--From the allotments made
for a State under subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall pay directly to local governments, hospitals,
or other providers located in the State (including providers
of services received through an Indian Health Service
facility whether operated by the Indian Health Service or by
an Indian tribe or tribal organization) that provide
uncompensated emergency health services furnished to
undocumented aliens during that fiscal year, and to the
State, such amounts (subject to the total amount available
from such allotments) as the local governments, hospitals,
providers, or State demonstrate were incurred for the
provision of such services during that fiscal year.
``(2) Limitation on state use of funds.--Funds paid to a
State from allotments made under subsection (b) for a fiscal
year may only be used for making payments to local
governments, hospitals, or other providers for costs incurred
in providing emergency health services to undocumented aliens
or for State costs incurred with respect to the provision of
emergency health services to such aliens.
``(3) Inclusion of costs incurred with respect to certain
aliens.--Uncompensated emergency health services furnished to
aliens who have been allowed to enter the United States for
the sole purpose of receiving emergency health services may
be included in the determination of costs incurred by a
State, local government, hospital, or other provider with
respect to the provision of such services.
``(d) Applications; Advance Payments; Reallotment of Unused
Funds.--
``(1) Deadline for establishment of application process.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than July 31, 2003, the
Secretary shall establish a process under which States, local
governments, hospitals, or other providers located in the
State may apply for payments from allotments made under
subsection (b) for a fiscal year for uncompensated emergency
health services furnished to undocumented aliens during that
fiscal year.
``(B) Inclusion of measures to combat fraud.--The Secretary
shall include in the process established under subparagraph
(A) measures to ensure that fraudulent payments are not made
from the allotments determined under subsection (b) or from
amounts reallotted under paragraph (3).
``(2) Advance payment; Retrospective adjustment.--The
process established under paragraph (1) shall allow for
making payments under this section for each quarter of a
fiscal year on the basis of advance estimates of expenditures
submitted by applicants for such payments and such other
investigation as the Secretary may find necessary, and for
making reductions or increases in the payments as necessary
to adjust for any overpayment or underpayment for prior
quarters.
``(3) Reallotment of Unused Funds.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to allotments made under
subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the amount of any allotment
to a State for a fiscal year that the Secretary determines
will not be expended during that fiscal year or the
succeeding fiscal year shall be available for reallotment
during the second succeeding fiscal year, on such date as the
Secretary may determine, to other States with allotments
under that subsection that the Secretary determines will use
such excess amounts during that second succeeding fiscal
year.
``(B) Determination of reallotments.--Reallotments under
subparagraph (A) shall be made in the same manner as
allotments are determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (b) but only with respect to those States that the
Secretary determines qualify for a reallotment for a fiscal
year under that subparagraph.
``(C) Treatment.--Any amount reallotted under subparagraph
(A) to a State is deemed to be part of its allotment under
subsection (b) for the fiscal year in which the reallotment
occurs.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Hospital.--The term `hospital' has the meaning given
such term in section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(e)).
``(2) Indian tribe; tribal organization.--The terms `Indian
tribe' and `tribal organization' have the meanings given such
terms in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
``(3) Provider.--The term `provider' includes a physician,
any other health care professional licensed under State law,
and any other entity that furnishes emergency health
services, including ambulance services.
``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
``(5) State.--The term `State' means the 50 States and the
District of Columbia.
``(f) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents
the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the
payment of amounts provided under this section.''.
______
By. Mr. NICKLES:
S. 413. A bill to provide for the fair and efficient judicial
consideration of personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out
of asbestos exposure, to ensure that individuals who suffer harm, now
or in the future, from illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos receive
compensation for their injuries, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill and to
speak about a litigation crisis affecting both the overall well-being
of our nation and our ability to stimulate economic recovery. I'm
speaking of the out-of-control explosion of asbestos litigation.
Asbestos litigation has become a disease in our economy. It threatens
to drive scores of companies into bankruptcy. It discourages investment
in companies under suit. It drives stock value down. It diverts funds
away from expansion and growth. It results in job loss and, in short,
it has become an obstacle to economic recovery.
The cost of asbestos litigation and burden on business has been
devastating. Over 8,400 companies have been named as defendants in
suits. At least $54 billion has been paid on more than 6000,000 claims.
U.S. Insurers have paid over $22 billion. Insurers outside U.S. have
paid $8-12. Defendant companies have already expended between $20-24
billion in claims and transaction costs associated with asbestos
litigation.
The total cost of asbestos litigation could reach between $200-265
billion. This is revenue not invested in the economy, not invested in
new jobs.
Some companies are hit with multiple suits involving thousands of
plaintiffs. The weight of claims and settlements has resulted in an
alarming increase in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. Over sixty companies have
[[Page S2493]]
filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to asbestos claims. This trend toward
bankruptcy has had an alarming domino effect. As companies declare
Chapter 11 reorganization, the litigation burden shifts to other
defendant companies only encouraging them to declare bankruptcy as
well.
At least 5 major companies have each spent more than $1 billion.
Thirty-eight of the nations top 100 contractors to the DoD are now
asbestos defendants. This crisis threatens to impact our national
security industry at the worst possible time in our history. But it
also prevents us from aggressively stimulating the economy. The bottom-
line is: the cost of litigation and/or bankruptcy siphons away critical
business revenue needed for growth and the creation of new jobs. What
is frightening, is that only about half the number of potential
claimants have come forward thus far. If left unchecked, we have only
seen the tip of this crisis.
It's not only business that suffers. Employees of defendant companies
suffer a great deal from a damaging ripple effect. The Rand Institute
of Civil Justice estimates that 100,000 jobs were not created as a
result of asbestos litigation. Bankruptcies related to asbestos
litigation have led to 52,000-60,000 people losing their jobs,
according to a SEBAGO study. It is estimated that each displaced worker
will lose, on average, $25,000-$50,000 in wages before finding a job,
or in reduced salary following finding a new job.
It does not stop there. Approximately 42 percent of displaced
manufacturing workers participate in retraining programs, costing about
$2,000-$3,000 per worker. Local communities also bear the brunt of job
reductions due to asbestos-related lay-offs. It is estimated that there
have been between $.6 and $2.1 billion in additional indirect local
costs and loss. On average, there are eight additional jobs lost
locally for every initial job lost. Additional multiplier effects
include lowered property values, population decline and lost Federal
and State tax revenue.
Those employees fortunate enough not to lose their jobs in asbestos-
related cut-backs, also suffer due to the weakened position of their
employer. Studies show that reduced stock value in defendant companies
results in a 25 percent reduction in employees' 401(k) plan value. The
average worker loses, on average $8,300 in pension devaluation.
This is a situation that has been exploited by the non-injured. Over
65 percent of plaintiffs, estimates as high as 90 percent, have no
medical injury, but have filed suit on the basis that they ``may''
develop illness in the future. To date, most claims have been paid to
non-injured claimants. Some plaintiffs' attorneys are signing up
thousands of individual plaintiffs onto suits where there may be no
evidence of injury or no evidence of exposure to asbestos products. The
effect is that the largest portion of the claim pool is being paid to
non-injured claimants. As a result, this adversely affects the ability
of truly injured plaintiffs to collect damages. Claimants with
malignant injuries are being lost in the stampede of those not injured.
There is not only less money for those who really need it, the courts
are swamped with a flood of questionable claims. It is not surprising
that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice called out for Congress to find a
solution.
Congress must indeed act. We must find a solution that both protects
the economy and the legal rights of those truly injured by asbestos or
who will develop asbestos-related injuries in the future. That is why
today I introduce a bill that will not only introduce criteria to
reassert some control over an out-of-control litigation process, but
will come to the assistance of those truly injured and who need help.
It is also intended to put a halt to the severe damage asbestos
litigation has been wrecking on our economy, so that we can get on with
the process of economic recovery.
My bill, entitled the Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act
of 2003, establishes medical criteria that a claimant must meet prior
to filing a suit. It will also toll the statute of limitations, so that
those who develop an asbestos-related disease years down the road will
still retain their right of legal action. It also will limit abusive
venue shopping, but provides an exception of venue choice for those
terminally-ill and facing a shortened life expectancy.
In conclusion, I believe this bill offers a reasonable approach to
resolving this serious problem. I believe it offers a solid bipartisan
approach that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
come to support. If ever we hope to stimulate our economy into recovery
and achieve sustained growth, we must also address and eliminate those
factors that tend to drag the economy in the opposite direction.
Asbestos litigation is one of those inhibitors of the economy, and this
bill is a good step toward recovery. I encourage my colleagues to lend
their support to this bill and I thank you, 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. 413
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 ``Asbestos
Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Physical impairment.
Sec. 5. Procedures; removal.
Sec. 6. Statute of limitations; two-disease rule.
Sec. 7. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 8. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) asbestos is a mineral that was widely used before the
1980s for insulation, fireproofing, and other purposes;
(2) millions of American workers and others were
significantly exposed to asbestos, especially during and
after World War II and before the advent of regulation by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the early
1970s;
(3) exposure to asbestos has been associated with various
types of cancer, including mesothelioma and lung cancer, and
such nonmalignant conditions as asbestosis, pleural plaques,
and diffuse pleural thickening;
(4) the diseases caused by asbestos have latency periods of
up to 40 years or more, but the most serious asbestos-related
disease, mesothelioma, is fatal within 1 to 2 years, and
other related cancers are often fatal;
(5) although the use of asbestos has dramatically declined
since 1980 and workplace exposures have been regulated since
1971 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
past exposures will continue to result in significant death
and disability from mesothelioma and other cancers well into
the 21st century;
(6) exposure to asbestos has created a flood of litigation
targeting approximately 8,400 defendant companies in Federal
and State courts that the United States Supreme Court has
characterized as ``an elephantine mass'' of cases that
``defies customary judicial administration and calls for
national legislation,'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corporation, 119
S. Ct. 2295, 2302 (1999);
(7) the American Bar Association supports enactment of
Federal legislation that would--
(A) allow persons alleging non-malignant asbestos-related
disease claims to file a cause of action in Federal or State
court only if those persons meet the medical criteria in the
``ABA Standard for Non-Malignant Asbestos-Related Disease
Claims'' dated February 2003 or an appropriate similar
medical standard; and
(B) toll all applicable statutes of limitations until such
time as the medical criteria in such standard are met;
(8) asbestos personal injury litigation can be unfair and
inefficient, imposing a severe burden on litigants and
taxpayers alike, in most cases involving defendant companies
that were never involved in the production of asbestos;
(9) the extraordinary volume of nonmalignant asbestos cases
continues to strain Federal and State courts, with over
200,000 cases pending and over 50,000 new cases filed each
year;
(10) asbestos personal injury litigation has already
contributed to the bankruptcy of more than 60 companies and
the rate of asbestos-driven bankruptcies is accelerating;
(11) the vast majority of asbestos claims are filed by
individuals who--
(A) have been exposed to asbestos;
(B) may have some physical sign of exposure; and
(C) suffer no present asbestos-related impairment;
(12) the cost of compensating exposed persons who are not
sick--
(A) jeopardizes the ability of defendants to compensate
people with cancer and other serious asbestos-related
diseases, now and in the future; and
(B) strains the ability of courts to manage the deluge of
cases involving nonimpaired plaintiffs;
(13) an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 workers have lost their
jobs as a direct result of asbestos litigation and related
bankruptcies of
[[Page S2494]]
defendant companies and each displaced worker will, on
average, lose between $25,000 and $50,000 in lost wages;
(14) employees of defendant companies declaring bankruptcy
(who are often stockholders of those companies) will, on
average, lose 25 percent of the value of their retirement
investment under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 because of lost stock value;
(15) concerns about statutes of limitations can force
claimants who have been exposed to asbestos but who have no
current injury to bring premature lawsuits in order to
protect against losing their rights to future compensation
should those claimants become impaired;
(16) consolidations, joinder, and similar procedures, to
which some courts have resorted in order to deal with the
mass of asbestos cases, can undermine the appropriate
functioning of the judicial process and encourage the filing
of thousands of cases by exposed persons who are not yet sick
and who may never become sick;
(17) the availability of sympathetic forums in States with
no connection to the plaintiff or to the exposures that form
the basis of a lawsuit has encouraged the filing of thousands
of cases on behalf of exposed persons who are not yet sick
and may never become sick;
(18) asbestos litigation, if left unchecked by reasonable
congressional intervention, will--
(A) continue to inhibit the economy and run counter to
plans to stimulate economic growth and the creation of new
jobs;
(B) threaten the savings, retirement benefits, and
employment of defendants' current and retired employees;
(C) affect adversely the communities in which these
defendants operate; and
(D) impair interstate commerce and national initiatives,
including national security; and
(19) the public interest and the interest of interstate
commerce requires deferring the claims of exposed persons who
are not sick in order to--
(A) preserve, now and for the future, defendants' ability
to compensate people who develop cancer and other serious
asbestos-related injuries; and
(B) safeguard the jobs, benefits, and savings of American
workers and the well-being of the national economy.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) give priority to those asbestos claimants who can
demonstrate actual physical harm or illness caused by
asbestos;
(2) fully preserve the rights of claimants who were exposed
to asbestos to pursue compensation should those claimants
become sick in the future;
(3) enhance the ability of the Federal and State judicial
systems to supervise and control asbestos litigation and
asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings; and
(4) conserve the scarce resources of the defendants, and
marshal assets in bankruptcy, to allow compensation of cancer
victims and others who are physically harmed by exposure to
asbestos while securing the right to similar compensation for
those who may suffer physical harm in the future.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment.--
The term ``AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment'' means the American Medical Association's Guides
to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Fifth Edition
2000).
(2) Asbestos.--The term ``asbestos'' includes all minerals
defined as ``asbestos'' under section 1910 of title 29 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Asbestos claim.--The term ``asbestos claim''--
(A) means any claim for damages or other relief presented
in a civil action or bankruptcy proceeding, arising out of,
based on, or related to the health effects of exposure to
asbestos, including loss of consortium and any other
derivative claim made by or on behalf of any exposed person
or any representative, spouse, parent, child or other
relative of any exposed person; and
(B) does not include claims for benefits under a workers'
compensation law or veterans' benefits program, or claims
brought by any person as a subrogee by virtue of the payment
of benefits under a workers' compensation law.
(4) Asbestosis.--The term ``asbestosis'' means bilateral
diffuse interstitial fibrosis of the lungs caused by
inhalation of asbestos fibers.
(5) Certified b-reader.--The term ``certified B-reader''
means an individual qualified as a ``final'' or ``B-reader''
under section 37.51(b) of title 42 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(6) Civil action.--The term ``civil action''--
(A) means all suits of a civil nature in Federal or State
court, whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or in
admiralty; and
(B) does not include an action relating to any workers'
compensation law, or a proceeding for benefits under any
veterans' benefits program.
(7) Exposed person.--The term ``exposed person'' means any
person whose exposure to asbestos or to asbestos-containing
products is the basis for an asbestos claim.
(8) FEV1.--The term ``FEV1'' means forced expiratory volume
in the first second, which is the maximal volume of air
expelled in 1 second during performance of simple spirometric
tests.
(9) FVC.--The term ``FVC'' means forced vital capacity,
which is the maximal volume of air expired with maximum
effort from a position of full inspiration.
(10) ILO scale.--The term ``ILO Scale'' means the system
for the classification of chest x-rays set forth in the
International Labour Office's Guidelines for the Use of ILO
International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses
(1980) as amended by the International Labour Office.
(11) Nonmalignant condition.--The term ``nonmalignant
condition'' means any condition that is caused or may be
caused by asbestos other than a diagnosed cancer.
(12) Pathological evidence of asbestosis.--The term
``pathological evidence of asbestosis'' means a statement by
a Board-certified pathologist that--
(A) more than 1 representative section of lung tissue
uninvolved with any other disease process demonstrates a
pattern of peribronchiolar or parenchymal scarring in the
presence of characteristic asbestos bodies; and
(B) there is no other more likely explanation for the
presence of the fibrosis.
(13) Predicted lower limit of normal.--The term ``predicted
lower limit of normal'' for any test means the fifth
percentile of healthy populations based on age, height, and
gender, as referenced in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of
Permanent Impairment.
(14) Radiological evidence of asbestosis.--The term
``radiological evidence of asbestosis'' means a chest x-ray
showing small, irregular opacities (s,t) graded by a
certified B-reader as at least 1/1 on the ILO scale.
(15) Radiological evidence of diffuse pleural thickening.--
The term ``radiological evidence of diffuse pleural
thickening'' means a chest x-ray showing bilateral pleural
thickening of at least B2 on the ILO scale and blunting of at
least 1 costophrenic angle.
(16) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory or
possession of the United States or any political subdivision
of any of the entities under this paragraph.
(17) Veterans' benefits program.--The term ``veterans'
benefits program'' means any program for benefits in
connection with military service administered by the
Veterans' Administration under title 38, United States Code.
(18) Workers' compensation law.--The term ``workers'
compensation law''--
(A) means a law respecting a program administered by a
State or the United States to provide benefits, funded by a
responsible employer or an insurance carrier of that
employer, for occupational diseases or injuries or for
disability or death caused by occupational diseases or
injuries;
(B) includes the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) and chapter 81 of title 5, United
States Code; and
(C) does not include the Federal Employer's Liability Act
(45 U.S.C. 51 et seq.).
SEC. 4. PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT.
(a) Impairment Essential Element of Claim.--Physical
impairment of the exposed person, to which asbestos exposure
was a substantial contributing factor, shall be an essential
element of an asbestos claim. For purposes of this section,
cancer shall be presumed to involve physical impairment.
(b) Prima Facie Evidence of Physical Impairment.--
(1) In general.--No person shall bring or maintain a civil
action alleging a nonmalignant asbestos claim in the absence
of a prima facie showing of physical impairment as a result
of a medical condition to which exposure to asbestos was a
substantial contributing factor.
(2) Requirements of prima facie showing.--A prima facie
showing under this subsection shall include all of the
following minimum requirements:
(A) Permanent respiratory impairment rating.--A
determination by a qualified physician, on the basis of a
medical examination and pulmonary function testing, that the
exposed person has a permanent respiratory impairment rating
of at least Class 2 as defined by and evaluated under the AMA
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
(B) Diagnosis.--A diagnosis by a qualified physician of
asbestosis or diffuse pleural thickening, based at a minimum
on pathological evidence of asbestosis, radiological evidence
of asbestosis, or radiological evidence of diffuse pleural
thickening.
(C) Substantial contributing factor.--A determination by a
qualified physician that asbestosis or diffuse pleural
thickening (rather than solely chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease) is a substantial contributing factor to the exposed
person's physical impairment, based at a minimum on a
determination that the exposed person has either--
(i) a ratio of FEV1 to FVC that is equal to or greater than
the predicted lower limit of normal; or
(ii) a chest x-ray showing small, irregular opacities (s,t)
graded by a certified B-reader at least 2/1 on the ILO scale.
(c) Compliance With Technical Standards.--
[[Page S2495]]
(1) In general.--Evidence relating to physical impairment
under this section, including pulmonary function testing and
diffusing studies, shall comply with--
(A) the technical recommendations for examinations, testing
procedures, quality assurance and quality control, and
equipment of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment; or
(B) if the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment are not applicable, other authoritative standards.
(2) Adjustments.--No adjustments with respect to pulmonary
function testing shall be made on the basis of race.
(d) No Presumption at Trial.--Presentation of prima facie
evidence of asbestos-related impairment meeting the
requirements of this section shall not result in any
presumption at trial that the exposed person is impaired by
an asbestos-related condition, and evidence that the exposed
person made a prima facie showing of impairment shall not be
admissible at trial.
SEC. 5. PROCEDURES; REMOVAL.
(a) Consolidation.--A court may consolidate for trial any
number and type of asbestos claims with consent of all the
parties. In the absence of such consent, the court may
consolidate for trial only asbestos claims relating to the
same exposed person and members of the household of the
exposed person.
(b) Venue.--
(1) In general.--A civil action asserting an asbestos claim
may only be brought in the State of the plaintiff's domicile
or a State in which there occurred exposure to asbestos that
is a substantial contributing factor to the physical
impairment on which the claim is based.
(2) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
claim that--
(A) is based upon an exposed person's cancer; and
(B) is filed by an exposed person who is diagnosed with
fatal mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancer by a
qualified physician, resulting in a short life expectancy of
less than 3 years after the date on which the claim is filed.
(c) Preliminary Proceedings.--The plaintiff in any civil
action involving an asbestos claim shall file with the
complaint or other initial pleading a written report and
supporting test results constituting prima facie evidence of
the exposed person's asbestos-related impairment meeting the
requirements of section 4(b). The defendant shall be afforded
a reasonable opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the
proffered prima facie evidence of asbestos-related
impairment. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed without
prejudice upon a finding of failure to make the required
prima facie showing.
(d) Removal.--
(1) In general.--If a State court refuses or fails to apply
this section, any party in a civil action for an asbestos
claim may remove such action to a district court of the
United States in accordance with chapter 89 of title 28,
United States Code.
(2) Jurisdiction over removed actions.--The district courts
of the United States shall have jurisdiction of all civil
actions removed under this subsection, without regard to the
amount in controversy and without regard to the citizenship
or residence of the parties.
(3) Removal by any defendant.--A civil action may be
removed to the district court of the United States under this
subsection by any defendant without the consent of all
defendants.
(4) Remand.--The district court shall remand any civil
action removed solely under this subsection, unless the court
finds that--
(A) the State court failed to comply with procedures
prescribed by law; or
(B) the failure to dismiss by the State court lacked
substantial support in the record before the State court.
SEC. 6. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; TWO-DISEASE RULE.
(a) Statute of Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, with respect to any nonmalignant asbestos
claim not barred on the effective date of this Act, the
limitations period shall not begin to run until the exposed
person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable
diligence should have discovered, that the exposed person is
physically impaired by an asbestos-related nonmalignant
condition.
(b) Two-Disease Rule.--An asbestos claim arising out of a
nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action
from an asbestos claim relating to the same exposed person
arising out of asbestos-related cancer. No damages shall be
awarded for fear or risk of cancer in any civil action
asserting only a nonmalignant asbestos claim.
(c) General Releases From Liability Prohibited.--No
settlement of a nonmalignant asbestos claim concluded after
the date of enactment of this Act shall require, as a
condition of settlement, release of any future claim for
asbestos-related cancer.
SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a) Construction With Other Laws.--This Act shall not be
construed to--
(1) affect the scope or operation of any workers'
compensation law or veterans' benefit program;
(2) affect the exclusive remedy or subrogation provisions
of any such law; or
(3) authorize any lawsuit which is barred by any such
provision of law.
(b) Constitutional Authority.--The Constitutional authority
for this Act is contained in Article I, section 8, clause 3
and Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United
States.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act and apply to any civil action asserting an asbestos claim
in which trial has not commenced as of that date.
____________________