[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 37 (Friday, March 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3370-S3373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 574. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to toll the 5-year limit for assistance under the temporary assistance 
to needy families program for recipients who live in a State that is 
experiencing significant increases in unemployment; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, 
the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or 
UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning 
from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods 
of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for 
joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation.
  Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot 
find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, 
which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed 
workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 
to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed 
qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million 
fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn 
began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find 
employment, particularly full-time employment.
  A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a 
week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For 
families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they 
have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work 
requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment.
  The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, 
or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF 
assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate 
reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 
1.5 percentage points over a three-month period.
  Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare 
caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong 
contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and 
increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare 
recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak 
and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self-
sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income 
families who are unable to find work or meet their needs.
  My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from 
welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to 
provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. 
The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, 
it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need.
  While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into 
work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach 
their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find 
jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many 
states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it 
extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full-
time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition 
from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to 
continue to help these families build their skills and find employment 
when times are tough.
  As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues 
to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from 
welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 574

       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 ``Unemployment Protection for 
     Low-Income Families on TANF Act of 2003'' or the ``UPLIFT Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. DISREGARD OF MONTHS OF ASSISTANCE RECEIVED DURING 
                   PERIODS OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a)(7) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(H) Disregard of assistance received during periods of 
     high unemployment.--
       ``(i) In general.--In determining the number of months for 
     which an adult has received assistance under a State or 
     tribal program funded under this part, the State or tribe 
     shall disregard any month in which the State is determined to 
     be a high unemployment State for that month.
       ``(ii) Definition of high unemployment state.--For purposes 
     of clause (i), a State shall be considered to be a high 
     unemployment State for a month if it satisfies either of the 
     following criteria:

       ``(I) State rate of unemployment.--The average--

       ``(aa) rate of total unemployment (seasonally adjusted) in 
     the State for the period consisting of the most recent 3 
     months for which data are available has increased by the 
     lesser of 1.5 percentage points or by 50 percent over the 
     corresponding 3-month period in either of the 2 most recent 
     preceding fiscal years; or

[[Page S3371]]

       ``(bb) insured unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) in 
     the State for the most recent 3 months for which data are 
     available has increased by 1 percentage point over the 
     corresponding 3-month period in either of the 2 most recent 
     preceding fiscal years.

       ``(II) National rate of unemployment.--The average rate of 
     total unemployment (seasonally adjusted) for all States for 
     the period consisting of the most recent 3 months for which 
     data for all States are published equals or exceeds 6.5 
     percent.

       ``(iii) Duration.--A State that is considered to be a high 
     unemployment State under clause (ii) for a month shall 
     continue to be considered such a State until the rate that 
     was used to meet the definition as a high unemployment State 
     under that clause for the most recently concluded 3-month 
     period for which data are available, falls below the level 
     attained in the 3-month period in which the State first 
     qualified as a high unemployment State under that clause.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 575. A bill to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide 
for the support of Native American language survival schools, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend 
the Native American Languages Act to provide authorization for the 
establishment of Native American Language Survival Schools. I am 
pleased to be joined in the co-sponsorship of this measure by the 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell.
  As part of the United States' forced assimilation policies towards 
Native Americans in the 1880s, the Federal Government initiated a 
system of off-reservation boarding schools. Native American Children 
were forcibly taken from their families and transported hundreds of 
miles to schools were they were subjected to efforts to eradicate all 
vestiges of their cultural background: their hair was cut 
notwithstanding the religious importance of hair length in most native 
cultures; their clothes were replaced with military-style uniforms; 
they were forbidden to practice their native religions; and they were 
punished for speaking their native languages. This effort to eradicate 
Indian culture was unsuccessful and the United States eventually 
abandoned this policy. However, the long-lasting impacts have separated 
generations of Native Americans from their native languages.
  The Native American Languages Act of 1990 officially repudiated the 
policies of the past and declared that ``it is the policy of the United 
States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of 
Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American 
languages.'' The Native American Languages Act Amendments of 1992 
amended the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to establish a grant 
program to support Native American language projects which would be 
administered by the Administration for Native Americans, Department of 
Health and Human Services. This bill would bring the Nation one step 
closer to assuring the preservation and revitalization of Native 
American languages by supporting the development of Native American 
Language Survival Schools.
  The purpose of this bill is to address the effects of past 
discrimination against Native American language speakers and to support 
revitalization of such languages through the development of Native 
American Language Survival Schools and Native American language Nests. 
In addition, the bill seeks to demonstrate the positive effects of 
Native American Language Survival Schools on the academic success of 
Native American students and their mastery of standard English. An 
important component in language revitalization is family involvement 
with the Native American Language Survival Schools, as well as 
educational exchanges among Native American Language Survival Schools. 
Furthermore, the bill provides support for Native American Language 
Survival School facilities and endowments, the development of local and 
national teaching models, and the creation of a university-level 
support center system for Native American Language Survival Schools.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Stabenow, 
        Mr. Fitzgerald, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Sununu):
  S. 576. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a shorter recovery period for the depreciation of certain leasehold 
improvements, to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined again by my colleague 
Mr. Nickles and many others, to introduce important legislation to 
provide a 10-year depreciation life for leasehold improvements. 
Leasehold improvements are the alterations to leased space made by a 
building owner as part of the lease agreement with a tenant.
  This is a common sense move that will help bring economic development 
to cities and towns around the country that want to revitalize their 
business districts. It will allow owners of commercial property to 
remodel their buildings to better meet the business needs of their 
communities--whether for new computer ports and data lines for high-
tech entrepreneurs, or better lighting and sales space for retailers.
  In actual commercial use, leasehold improvements typically last as 
long as the lease--an average of 5 to 10 years. However, the Internal 
Revenue Code requires leasehold improvements to be depreciated over 39 
years--the life of the building itself.
  Economically, this makes no sense. The owner receives taxable income 
over the life of the lease, yet can only recover the costs of the 
improvements associated with that lease over 39 years--a rate nearly 
four times slower. This preposterous mismatch of income and expenses 
causes the owner to incur an artificially high tax cost on these 
improvements.
  The bill we are introducing today will correct this irrational and 
uneconomic tax treatment by shortening the cost recovery period for 
certain leasehold improvements from 39 years to a more realistic 10 
years. The proposal being offered today would apply to property placed 
in service after September 10, 2004, in order to provide a smooth 
transition from the temporary bonus depreciation system enacted as part 
of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.
  This legislation would more closely align the expenses incurred to 
construct improvements with the income they generate over the term of 
the lease. By reducing the cost recovery period, the expense of making 
these improvements could fall more into line with the economics of a 
commercial lease transaction, and more building owners would be able to 
adapt their buildings to fit the needs of today's business tenant.
  It is good for the economy to keep existing buildings commercially 
viable. When older buildings can serve tenants who need modern, 
efficient commercial space, there is less pressure for developing 
greenfields in outlying areas. Americans are concerned about preserving 
open space, natural resources, and a sense of neighborhood. The current 
law 39-year cost recovery period for leasehold improvements is an 
impediment to reinvesting in existing properties and communities.
  Shortening the recovery period will make renovation and 
revitalization of business properties more attractive. That will be 
good not just for property owners, but also for the economic 
development professionals who are working hard every day to attract new 
businesses to empty downtown storefronts or aging strip malls. And it 
will be good for the architects and contractors who carry out the 
renovations.
  I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this legislation to 
provide rational depreciation treatment for leasehold improvements.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleague from 
North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in introducing legislation to provide that 
leasehold improvements are depreciated over 10 years instead of the 
current-law 39 years. Leasehold improvements are modifications to the 
interior of rental space, either office or retail space, not 
residential real estate, made by a building owner as part of a lease 
agreement with a tenant. These improvements include electrical and 
communications outlets, data ports, floor coverings, fire and security 
systems, and internal walls.
  Under the current depreciation system, leasehold improvements to 
rental property are depreciated over the same time period as the 
building itself--39 years. However, this 39 year depreciable life does 
not reflect the actual

[[Page S3372]]

life of these improvements. Lease terms average 7 to 10 years for 
office space and 3 to 5 years for retail space. Building owners 
typically must remove any leasehold improvements they have made to a 
property at the end of the lease term. Or, in the case of a lease 
renewal, tenants frequently demand that owners make improvements to the 
property as a condition of renewing the lease. Requiring business 
owners to depreciate these improvements over 39 years leads to a 
mismatch of income and expenses, thereby increasing the tax consequence 
of making such improvements. The long depreciation period simply makes 
no economic sense.
  I believe that our tax laws should be updated to treat leasehold 
improvements in a more rational manner. That is why my colleague and I 
are introducing legislation to reduce the depreciable life of these 
improvements from 39 years to 10 years. By reducing the time period 
over which leasehold improvements are depreciated, our bill will more 
accurately align income and expenses related to rental property, and 
will mitigate the tax disincentives to modernizing commercial 
buildings.
  In last year's economic stimulus bill Congress provided some relief 
to owners of rental property by allowing a 30 percent depreciation 
bonus for qualified leasehold improvements. However, this relief is 
only partial and is temporary. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to enact my legislation that will provide more rational tax-
treatment of leasehold improvements on a permanent basis. By so doing, 
we will take an incremental step toward modernizing the tax code's 
outdated depreciation rules.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. 
        Sununu):
  S. 577. A bill to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area 
in the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and 
Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Gregg and Senator Sununu.
  The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 
communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The 
area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to 
New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of 
the reasons I believe this designation makes sense.
  The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in 
historic sties, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's 
resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire 
region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important 
to our country's founding and our political and philosophical 
principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These 
include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National 
Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows 
National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State 
Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village.
  In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. 
The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and 
have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. 
Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a 
small piece of American and New England history, and local business 
leaders. It is an honor to help their cause.
  Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy, 
Gregg, and Sununu.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Akaka, and Ms. 
        Cantwell):
  S. 578. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include 
Indian tribes among the entities consulted with respect to activities 
carried out by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Government Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include Indian tribal 
governments amongst the governmental entities that are consulted with 
respect to activities carried out by the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security. This bill is entitled the ``Tribal Government 
Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002'', and I am pleased to 
be joined in the sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, as 
well as our colleagues Senator Daniel Akaka, and Senator Maria 
Cantwell.
  The amendments proposed in this measure were developed in 
consultation with the Senate Government Affairs Committee in the last 
session of the Congress but were not included in the final version of 
the Act because of the procedural posture of the bill as it came to the 
Senate from the House of Representatives.
  There are 260 miles of tribal lands which form our northern and 
southern borders with Canada and Mexico, and along those border lands, 
tribal governments are the principal and frequently the only law 
enforcement presence with the capacity to protect those borders and to 
assure the safety of our homeland. In addition, there are hundreds of 
miles of tribal lands that border the waters surrounding the United 
States, and there too, tribal law enforcement is the first line of 
defense for purposes of homeland security.
  In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, tribal governments are included 
in the definition of ``local governments''. As we all know, local 
governments are political subdivisions of the States. In contrast, 
tribal governments are recognized as separate sovereigns under the 
United States Constitution that do not derive their sovereign status 
from the States, and accordingly, we believe that Federal law should 
continue to reflect the legal distinction between local governments 
that are political subdivisions of the States and tribal governments.
  Accordingly, these amendments would remove tribal governments from 
the definition of ``local governments'' as currently set forth in the 
Act, and insert tribal governments in the appropriate and relevant 
sections of the Act.
  There can be no doubt that tribal governments have a critical role to 
play in our Nation's homeland security efforts and the protection of 
our land and water borders. Thus, this measure also makes clear that 
for purposes of homeland security, the United States recognizes the 
inherent authority of tribal governments to exercise jurisdiction 
currently with the Federal government to assure that applicable 
criminal, civil and regulatory laws are enforced on tribal lands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Mrs. Hutchison).
  S. 579. A bill to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety 
Board, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. 579

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Transportation 
     Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fiscal Years 2003-2006.--Section 1118(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by striking ``such sums to'' and inserting the 
     following: ``$73,325,000 for fiscal year 2003, $78,757,000 
     for fiscal year 2004, $83,011,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $87,539,000 for fiscal year 2006. Such sums shall''.
       (b) Emergency Fund.--Section 1118(b) of such title is 
     amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``In addition, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to increase the 
     fund to, and maintain the fund at, a level not to exceed 
     $3,000,000.''.
       (c) NTSB Academy.--Section 1118 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Academy.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Board for necessary expenses of the 
     National Transportation

[[Page S3373]]

     Safety Board Academy, not otherwise provided for, $3,347,000 
     for fiscal year 2003, $4,896,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $4,995,000 for fiscal year 2005, and $5,200,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Fees.--The Board may impose and collect such fees as 
     it determines to be appropriate for services provided by or 
     through the Academy.
       ``(3) Receipts credited as offsetting collections.--
     Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any fee collected 
     under this paragraph--
       ``(A) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the 
     account that finances the activities and services for which 
     the fee is imposed;
       ``(B) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the 
     costs of activities and services for which the fee is 
     imposed; and
       ``(C) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(4) Refunds.--The Board may refund any fee paid by 
     mistake or any amount paid in excess of that required.''.
       (c) Report on Academy Operations.--The National 
     Transportation Safety Board shall transmit an annual report 
     to the Congress on the activities and operations of the 
     National Transportation Safety Board Academy.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED IN 
                   AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS.

       (a) Relinquishment of Investigative Priority.--Section 1136 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j) Relinquishment of Investigative Priority.--
       ``(1) General rule.--This section (other than subsection 
     (g)) shall not apply to an aircraft accident if the Board has 
     relinquished investigative priority under section 
     1131(a)(2)(B) and the Federal agency to which the Board 
     relinquished investigative priority is willing and able to 
     provide assistance to the victims and families of the 
     passengers involved in the accident.
       ``(2) Board assistance.--If this section does not apply to 
     an aircraft accident because the Board has relinquished 
     investigative priority with respect to the accident, the 
     Board shall assist, to the maximum extent possible, the 
     agency to which the Board has relinquished investigative 
     priority in assisting families with respect to the 
     accident.''.
       (b) Revision of MOU.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the National Transportation Safety 
     Board and the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall revise 
     their 1977 agreement on the investigation of accidents to 
     take into account the amendments made by this section and 
     shall submit a copy of the revised agreement to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.

     SEC. 4. RELIEF FROM CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES.

       Section 1113(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Statutes;'' in paragraph (1)(B) and 
     inserting ``Statutes, and, for investigations conducted under 
     section 1131, enter into such agreements or contracts without 
     regard to any other provision of law requiring competition if 
     necessary to expedite the investigation;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Board, as a component of its annual report under 
     section 1117, shall include an enumeration of each contract 
     for $25,000 or more executed under this section during the 
     preceding calendar year.''.

                          ____________________