[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 8, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4958-S4974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 808. A bill to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sleeping
Bear Dunes expansion bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 808
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL
LAKESHORE.
(a) In General.--When title to the land described in
subsection (b) has vested in the United States in fee simple,
the boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is
revised to include such land in that park.
(b) Land Described.--The land referred to in subsection (a)
consists of approximately 104.45 of unimproved lands
generally depicted on National Park Service map number 634/
80078, entitled ``Bayberry Mills, Inc. Crystal River, MI
Proposed Expansion Unit to Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore''. The Secretary of the Interior shall keep such
map on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
[[Page S4959]]
(c) Purchase of Lands Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior may acquire
the land described in subsection (b), only by purchase from a
willing seller.
(2) Budget request.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
include in the National Park Service budget submitted for
fiscal year 2004 a request for funds necessary for the
acquisition authorized by this subsection.
(d) Limitation on Acquisition by Exchange or Conveyance.--
The Secretary of the Interior may not acquire any of the land
described in subsection (b) through any exchange or
conveyance of lands that are within the boundary of the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, and Mrs.
Hutchison):
S. 810. A bill to enhance the protection of children against crime by
eliminating the statute of limitations for child abduction and sex
crimes, providing for registration of child pornographers as sex
offenders, establishing a grant program in support of AMBER Alert
communications plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. 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. 810
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 ``Protecting Children Against
Crime Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHILD ABDUCTION AND SEX
CRIMES.
(a) Statute of Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3297. Child abduction and sex offenses
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an indictment
may be found or an information instituted at any time without
limitation for any offense under section 1201 involving a
minor victim, and for any felony under chapter 109A, 110, or
117, or section 1591.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``3297. Child abduction and sex offenses.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this section.
SEC. 3. REGISTRATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS IN THE NATIONAL
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY.
(a) Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually
Violent Offender Registration Program.--Section 170101 of
subtitle A of title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 170101. JACOB WETTERLING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND
SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER REGISTRATION
PROGRAM.'';
and
(2) in subsection (a)(3)--
(A) in clause (vii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
(C) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
``(viii) production or distribution of child pornography,
as described in section 2251, 2252, or 2252A of title 18,
United States Code; or''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2007, such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE AMBER
ALERT COMMUNICATIONS PLANS.
(a) Program Required.--The Attorney General of the United
States shall carry out a program to provide grants to States
for the development or enhancement of programs and activities
for the support of AMBER Alert communications plans.
(b) Activities.--Activities funded by grants under the
program under subsection (a) may include the development and
implementation of new technologies to improve AMBER Alert
communications.
(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activities funded by a grant under the program under
subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost
thereof.
(d) Distribution of Grant Amounts on Geographic Basis.--The
Attorney General shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
ensure the distribution of grants under the program under
subsection (a) on an equitable basis throughout the various
regions of the United States.
(e) Administration.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
requirements, including application requirements, for grants
under the program under subsection (a).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Justice $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2007, to carry out this section.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STUDY AND REPORT CONCERNING
ON-LINE PORNOGRAPHY.
(a) Study.--The National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences shall conduct a study of--
(1) the extent to which it is possible for Internet service
providers to monitor Internet traffic to detect illicit child
pornography sites on the Internet, and the extent to which
they do so;
(2) the extent to which purveyors use credit cards to
facilitate the sale of illegal child pornography on the
Internet;
(3) which credit card issuers have in place a system to
facilitate the identification of purveyors who use credit
cards to facilitate the sale of illicit child pornography;
and
(4) options for encouraging greater reporting of such
illicit transactions to law enforcement officials.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the National Research Council
shall submit a report to the Congress on the study conducted
under subsection (a).
SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
______
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 811. A bill to support certain housing proposals in the fiscal
year 2003 budget for the Federal Government, including the downpayment
assistance initiative under the HOME Investment Partnership Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American
Dream Downpayment Act. I am pleased to have Senator Sessions join me in
introducing this bill.
Homeownership has long been the American dream, and we are incredibly
fortunate that in America more and more families have been able to
achieve the dream of homeownership. In fact, right now more American
families own their home than ever before, and that number continues to
increase.
However, for some working families, low income families, women-headed
households, minority families, urban dwellers, and young families the
dream of homeownership remains elusive.
This is particularly true for minority families. While Americans
enjoy the world's greatest opportunities for becoming homeowners, only
47 percent of African-American and Hispanic families own their homes,
as compared to 75 percent of white families.
We must eliminate this gap in homeownership, so I am pleased to join
with President Bush and Secretary Martinez in the initiative to create
5.5 million new minority homeowner families by the end of the decade.
One key component of this initiative is the American Dream
Downpayment Initiative, which I am pleased to introduced today in the
Senate. This bill will provide $200 million annually to State and local
governments for downpayment assistance programs.
One of the greatest barriers for families in becoming homeowners is
their inability to afford the downpayment requirements and closing
costs. These are hard working families that can make mortgage payments,
they simply need assistance with the downpayment and closing costs.
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative will create 40,000 new
homeowners each year, focusing on low-income and first-time homebuyers.
And because the initiative will be administered through HUD's existing
HOME program, it will minimize bureaucracy and duplication while
maximizing flexibility for local jurisdictions.
Homeownership has many benefits for cities, neighborhood, and
families. In fact, a study released by the Homeownership Alliance
revealed that children living in an owned home scored nine percent
higher on math tests and seven percent higher in reading achievement.
Homeownership has the power to transform individual lives and to
[[Page S4960]]
strengthen entire communities. Increasing homeownership, particularly
among minorities, is a top goal for me.
The $200 million for the American Dream Downpayment Fund will help
make that dream come true for more American families.
I look forward to the opportunity to working with my colleagues to
get the American Dream Downpayment Initiative enacted into law.
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. 811
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 ``American Dream Downpayment
Act''.
SEC. 2. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE UNDER HOME PROGRAM.
(a) Downpayment Assistance Initiative.--Subtitle E of title
II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
(42 U.S.C. 12821) is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle E--Other Assistance
``SEC. 271. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.
``(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants to
participating jurisdictions to assist low-income families to
achieve homeownership, in accordance with this section.
``(b) Eligible Activities.--
``(1) In general.--Grants made under this section may be
used only for downpayment assistance toward the purchase of
single family housing by low-income families who are first-
time homebuyers.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term
`downpayment assistance' means assistance to help a family
acquire a principal residence.
``(c) Housing Strategy.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section for a fiscal year, a participating
jurisdiction shall include in its comprehensive housing
affordability strategy submitted under section 105 for such
year, a description of the use of the grant amounts.
``(d) Formula Allocation.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall allocate any amounts made available for assistance
under this section for the fiscal year in accordance with a
formula, established by the Secretary, that considers a
participating jurisdiction's need for and prior commitment to
assistance to homebuyers.
``(2) Allocation amounts.--The formula referred to in
paragraph (1) may include minimum and maximum allocation
amounts.
``(e) Reallocation.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
any amounts allocated to a participating jurisdiction under
this section become available for reallocation, the amounts
shall be reallocated to other participating jurisdictions in
accordance with the formula established pursuant to
subsection (d).
``(2) Exception.--If a local participating jurisdiction
failed to receive amounts allocated under this section and is
located in a State that is a participating jurisdiction, the
funds shall be reallocated to the State.
``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, grants made under this section shall not be subject
to the provisions of this title.
``(2) Applicable provisions.--In addition to the
requirements of this section, grants made under this section
shall be subject to the provisions of title I, sections
215(b), 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, and 226(a) of subtitle A of
this title, and subtitle F of this title.
``(3) References.--In applying the requirements of subtitle
A referred to in paragraph (2)--
``(A) any references to funds under subtitle A shall be
considered to refer to amounts made available for assistance
under this section; and
``(B) any references to funds allocated or reallocated
under section 217 or 217(d) shall be considered to refer to
amounts allocated or reallocated under subsection (d) or (e)
of this section, respectively.
``(g) Administrative Costs.--Notwithstanding section
212(c), a participating jurisdiction may use funds under
subtitle A for administrative and planning costs of the
jurisdiction in carrying out this section, and the limitation
in section 212(c) shall be based on the total amount of funds
available under subtitle A and this section.
``(h) Funding.--
``(1) Fiscal year 2002.--This section constitutes the
subsequent legislation authorizing the Downpayment Assistance
Initiative referred to in the item relating to the `HOME
Investment Partnerships Program' in title II of the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
2002 (Public Law 107-73; 115 Stat. 666).
``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2003 through 2006.''.
``(b) Relocation Assistance and Downpayment Assistance.--
Subtitle F of title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act is amended by inserting after section
290 (42 U.S.C. 12840) the following:
SEC. 291. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE.
``The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1894) shall not apply to
downpayment assistance under this title.''.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 812. A bill to amend section 16131 of title 10, United States
Code, to increase rates of educational assistance under the program of
educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at a time when our men and women in
uniform are fighting valiantly to bring peace and opportunity to an
oppressed people and ensure the security of our homeland, I am pleased
to introduce the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 to
extend the opportunity of higher education to many of those very same
men and women in uniform. This legislation provides our National Guard
and Reserve personnel, hundreds of thousands of whom are currently
mobilized, deployed, and fighting around the globe, with educational
opportunities as intended by the Montgomery GI bill. I am pleased that
my colleagues, Senators Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, and Bill Nelson, have
joined as cosponsors.
Through this legislation, we week to promote both service to country
and education in a way that is both logical and fair. Members of our
National Guard and Reserve are members of our communities. The skills
they learn from military service are reflected in the positions of
leadership they assume among us. These citizen-soldiers have
demonstrated their commitment to serve and as members of the ``total
force'' deserve opportunities to further improve themselves through the
civilian educational opportunities the Montgomery GI bill promotes.
Service and education are prerequisites of a strong, vibrant democracy.
This legislation seeks to further this combined effort.
The original GI bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was
enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend as
well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative,
7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post-
service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2
million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those
veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned
to college with assistance from the GI bill.
Since the 1940's various versions of servicemen's education
assistance have allowed millions of veterans to take advantage of
educational opportunities. Over time, however, inflation and the
escalating costs of higher education have eroded the value of those
educational benefits. During the 107th Congress with the enactment of
Public Law 107-103 Senator Johnson and I, along with many of our
colleagues, made great strides returning value to educational
assistance benefits available for active component service members and
veterans. More remains to be done.
The United States military is an all volunteer force. In times of
peace and prosperity and in times of trial, we rely on young men and
women to come forward of their own accord to stand up for our
collective defense. Though service to country and patriotism,
particularly in times of crisis, factor into recruiting this all
volunteer force, benefits still do and ought to matter. We must remain
vigilant, as we are constantly recruiting new members of our armed
forces, ensuring the benefits these individuals receive from military
service are commensurate with the service they render to this nation.
At its inception in 1985, the Reserve Montgomery GI bill program, had
been pegged at 47 percent of basic active component Montgomery GI bill
benefits. During the ensuing 18 years, the parity of the reserve
program with its active duty counterpart has slipped. At present the
Chapter 1606 program, Selected Reserve Montgomery GI bill, is only
about 28 percent of the Chapter 30 program. This legislation attempts
to bring the reserve program back in line with the active component
benefit.
[[Page S4961]]
In each of the last three years over 75,000 National Guard and
Reserve members have taken advantage of Veterans Administration
educational benefits for pursuing their educational or vocational
objectives. While those citizen-soldiers currently mobilized may become
eligible for veterans benefits, we must correct the disparity between
the active and reserve Montgomery GI bill programs. Only two benefit
increases have been legislated in the reserve program since its
inception in 1985, other than cost-of-living increases. The reserve
Montgomery GI bill benefit for full-time study stands at $276 compared
to $985 per month for the Title 38 program. This legislation will bring
the reserve Montgomery GI bill benefit to $428 per month in fiscal year
2004 and $473 per month in fiscal year 2005 and continue out-year
increases in accordance with advances in the consumer price index.
The Military Coalition comprised of 33 member organizations
representing over 5.5 million veterans and family members endorses rate
increases and funds for the reserve Montgomery GI bill program so that
National Guard and Reserve service members can reap an educational
return on their voluntary service to country.
It is time to return reserve educational assistance benefits to the
level intended by the original drafting of the Reserve Montgomery GI
Bill. Coupling and reinforcing service with higher education will pay
dividends for our future security, strength and prosperity. This
legislation fulfills the promise made to our Nation's service members,
helps with recruiting and retention, strengthens the economy, and
partly offsets the increasing costs of higher education.
I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the
Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 and quickly pass
this legislation.
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. 812
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER
PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS
OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates.--Section 16131(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A)
through (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs (A)
through (C):
``(A) For a program of education pursued on a full-time
basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $428;
``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2005, $473;
and
``(iii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the previous
fiscal year, increased under paragraph (2).
``(B) For a program of education pursued on a three-
quarter-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $321;
``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2005, $355;
and
``(iii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the previous
fiscal year, increased under paragraph (2).
``(C) For a program of education pursued on a half-time
basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $214;
``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2005, $237;
and
``(iii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the previous
fiscal year, increased under paragraph (2).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2003, and shall apply with
respect to months that begin on or after the date.
(c) CPI Adjustment.--No adjustment shall be made under
paragraph (2) of section 16131(b) of title 10, United States
Code, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
______
By Mr. CORZINE:
S. 813. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to require a State to promote financial education under the temporary
assistance to needy families program and to allow financial education
to count as a work activity under that program; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators
Akaka and Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Literacy for Self-
Sufficiency Act.
Our bill would require States to promote financial education through
their TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, programs. Financial
education--education that promotes an understanding of consumer,
economic, and personal finance concepts--is extremely important for all
families, and is especially important for low-income families who are
moving from welfare to work.
While TANF focuses on moving families off cash assistance and into
work, it fails to provide recipients with the tools they need to
maximize their earnings and manage their expenses in order to achieve
financial stability once they are employed. If we truly expect to move
these families to achieve financial independence, we must give them the
tools they will need to make that transition.
One of these tools is a bank account. Millions of low-income families
remain outside of the formal banking system, with many of them spending
too much of their hard-earned dollars at costly check cashing
operations. In fact, more than eight million families earning under
$25,000 a year lack a checking or savings account. A study conducted by
the United States Department of the Treasury in 2000 found that a
worker earning $12,000 a year would pay approximately $250 a year just
to cash their payroll checks at such an outlet. And, nearly 16 percent
of the checks cashed at check cashing outlets are government benefit
checks--including welfare benefit checks.
In addition to expanding the number of banks that do business in low-
income communities, educating low-income unbanked families about the
benefits of formal checking and savings accounts can significantly
improve access to financial services.
But, financial education isn't just about bank accounts and savings.
It is also about protecting low-income families form predatory lending
and devastating credit arrangements. Financial education that addresses
abusive lending practices can help prevent unaffordable loan payments,
equity stripping, and foreclosure. I strongly support legislative
efforts to end predatory lending practices in our country, but until we
do, ensuring that consumers are aware of unfair and abusive loan terms
is a measure that will provide them some protection from these tactics.
Finally, families leaving welfare for work face many challenges,
including securing child care and transportation. One challenge that
often is not mentioned, however, is the challenge of transitioning from
a benefits-based income to a wage income. Financial literacy programs
that educate families transitioning from welfare to work about taxes
and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent
Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, will ensure that they
have access to these important work benefits.
The Financial Literacy for Self-Sufficiency Act will allow States to
use their TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations,
banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs
for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning
from welfare to work. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
Chairman Greenspan has noted, ``Educational and training programs may
be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations
to enhance the ability of low-income households to accumulate assets.''
I hope members of the Senate Finance Committee will join my
colleagues and me in promoting financial education for our nation's
TANF recipients when they act to create a reauthorization framework for
our nation's welfare program.
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. 813
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 ``TANF Financial Education
Promotion Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
[[Page S4962]]
(1) Most recipients of assistance under the temporary
assistance to needy families program established under part A
of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and individuals moving toward self-sufficiency operate
outside the financial mainstream, paying high costs to handle
their finances and saving little for emergencies or the
future.
(2) Currently, personal debt levels and bankruptcy filing
rates are high and savings rates are at their lowest levels
in 70 years. The inability of many households to budget,
save, and invest prevents them from laying the foundation for
a secure financial future.
(3) Financial planning can help families meet near-term
obligations and maximize their longer-term well being,
especially valuable for populations that have traditionally
been underserved by our financial system.
(4) Financial education can give individuals the necessary
financial tools to create household budgets, initiate savings
plans, and acquire assets.
(5) Financial education can prevent vulnerable customers
from becoming entangled in financially devastating credit
arrangements.
(6) Financial education that addresses abusive lending
practices targeted at specific neighborhoods or vulnerable
segments of the population can prevent unaffordable payments,
equity stripping, and foreclosure.
(7) Financial education speaks to the broader purpose of
the temporary assistance to needy families program to equip
individuals with the tools to succeed and support themselves
and their families in self-sufficiency.
SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO PROMOTE FINANCIAL EDUCATION UNDER
TANF.
(a) State Plan.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(vii) Establish goals and take action to promote
financial education, as defined in section 407(j), among
parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program
through collaboration with community-based organizations,
financial institutions, and the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service of the Department of
Agriculture.''.
(b) Inclusion of Financial Education as a Work Activity.--
Section 407 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 607) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or (12)'' and
inserting ``(12), or (13)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or (12)'' each place
it appears and inserting ``(12), or (13)'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) financial education, as defined in subsection
(j).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Definition of Financial Education.--In this part, the
term `financial education' means education that promotes an
understanding of consumer, economic, and personal finance
concepts, including the basic principles involved with
earning, budgeting, spending, saving, investing, and
taxation.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2003.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Burns, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Talent, Mr. Dayton,
Mr. Bond, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Coleman, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 816. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to
protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care
provided by hospitals in rural areas, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, Senator Thomas and I would like to
introduce the Health Care Access and Rural Equity, (H-CARE), Act of
2003.
This proposal is the result of a tripartisan and Bicameral effort. We
are proud to be joined by 24 Members who also support the bill,
including--Senators Harkin, Grassley, Roberts, Daschle, Dorgan, Smith,
Johnson, Lincoln, Domenici, Rockefeller, Burns, Bingaman, Jeffords,
Cochran, Levin, Talent, Edwards, Bond, Pryor, Dayton, Snowe, Cantwell
and Murray. I would also like to thank our House companions, led by
Representatives Moran (R-KS), and Pomeroy.
Working together, I believe we are taking important steps toward
improving access to health care in our rural communities.
In addition, I would like to thank the National Rural Health
Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the American
Hospital Association, Premier Hospital Alliance and the Coalition
representing Sole Community Hospitals for their support of this effort.
As my colleagues may know, rural health care providers are often
forced to operate with significantly less resources that larger, urban
facilities. In my State of North Dakota, rural hospitals often receive
only half the reimbursement of their urban counterparts--for treating
the same patient. For example, a rural facility in North Dakota
receives approximately $4,200 for treating pneumona, while a hospital
in New York City can receive more than $8,500.
This funding disparity is simply unfair and has placed many rural
providers on shaky ground. Continued funding shortfalls have resulted
in rural providers having much tighter inpatient cost margins than
their urban counterparts--today, the average rural hospital operates
with a slim 3.9 percent cost margin compared to 11.3 percent for urban
providers). This situation has resulted in more than 43 percent of
rural hospitals operating in the red.
When you look at overall cost margins, the situation is even more
bleak--rural providers are working with an average negative 2.9 percent
Medicare margin, compared to 6.3 percent for urban hospitals). Our
rural facilities cannot continue to provide high quality services if
they lose nearly 3 percent on every Medicare patient they serve.
To address these problems, the bill we are introducing today would
take many important steps to improve the rural health care system.
First, it would provide a much-needed low-volume adjustment payment.
Today, it is nearly impossible for rural hospitals to take advantage of
economies of scale realized by facilities located in larger
communities. This situation has resulted in the majority of small
facilities losing money. To address this problem, our bill would
provide a new, extra payment to hospitals serving less than 2,000
patients per year. This provision would provide up to 25 percent in
additional funding to help rural providers cover inpatient hospital
services.
Second, H-CARE would close the gap in payments hospitals receive for
serving low-income patients. It would do this by allowing rural
hospitals to receive the same level of special ``Disproportionate
Share--or DISH Payments'' currently available to urban providers.
Third, our legislation would take steps to permanently equalize the
``base payment amount,'' which has been 1.6 times higher for urban
facilities. The recent Omnibus bill temporarily fixed this problem--but
only until the end of FY03. Our bill finishes the job.
Fourth, this legislation would help hospitals better meet labor costs
by making some needed improvements to the Medicare ``wage index''
calculation. Across the Nation, rural hospitals have reported that the
wage index does not accurately account for labor costs in their area.
Our bill takes steps to address this problem.
Fifth, our bill would ensure that rural hospitals continue to be paid
fairly for outpatient services. It does this by extending a provision
in current law that protects these hospitals against losses under the
current Medicare payment system. It also includes measures to protect
rural hospitals' access to lab services.
I am happy to say that this set of proposals would go a long way
toward placing rural facilities on much sounder financial footing. Let
me provide some examples.
Today, the average small hospital located in the Midwest receives
$3,926 as an average payment for inpatient services. If all the changes
laid out in our bill are enacted, this will improve payments to smaller
rural hospitals by about 25 percent.
If you look at a more specific service--such as treating pneumonia--
this same hospital would see payments increase from about $4,326 to
$5,405. These increases are clearly big improvements, which will bring
reimbursements for rural hospitals more in line with their costs.
Before I close, I'd also like to mention that this bill would
establish a new grant program to help rural hospitals repair crumbling
buildings. Under this program, rural providers
[[Page S4963]]
could apply for up to $5m in loan assistance. It is my hope these
resources will help strengthen the infrastructure of our Nation's rural
hospitals.
Finally, our bill includes a set of provisions that will make small--
but important--changes to the Critical Access Hospital, CAH, program.
These include measures to ensure CAHs have 24-hour emergency on-call
providers and to ensure they can afford to provide quality ambulance
care.
In total, the changes laid out in our bill will bring more than $72
million in new resources to my State of North Dakota over the next ten
years. The bill will provide similar benefits to other rural States.
Thank you again to my Senate and House colleagues, as well as the
organizations who worked with us, for your cooperation in developing
this important health care proposal. It is my hope that this
legislation will help to strengthen and sustain our Nation's rural
health care system.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
the ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act (H-CARE) of 2003'' with
Senator Conrad and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members, Senators
Harkin, Grassley, Johnson, Roberts, Domenici, Daschle, Bingaman, Bond,
Lincoln, Cochran, Burns, Rockefeller, Jeffords, Talent, Levin, Smith,
Dayton, Snowe, Edwards, Cantwell, Dorgan, Coleman and Murray. As
always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has
a long history of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration and
cooperation.
The ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act of 2003'' will go a
long way in addressing current inequities in the Medicare payment
system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. This
legislation recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels
the playing field between them and their urban counterparts.
Rural hospitals are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of
their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for almost 70 percent
of total revenue for small, rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower
patient volumes, but must compete nationally to recruit providers due
to the nursing and other health professional workforce shortages.
Additional burdens are placed on rural hospitals because of higher
uninsured rates in rural America. Also, seniors living in rural areas
tend to be poorer and have more chronic conditions than their urban and
suburban counterparts.
H-CARE recognizes the special circumstances faced by rural hospitals
and addresses these issues by equalizing Medicare Disproportionate
Share Hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals
cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low income and
uninsured patients. Current law allows urban facilities to receive
unlimited add-ons based on the percentage of these types of patients
served. However, small, rural hospital add-on payments are capped at 10
percent. H-CARE eliminates the Sole Community Hospital and small rural
hospital caps, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban
facilities received.
This legislation permanently closes the gap between urban and rural
`'standardized payment'' levels. Inpatient hospital payments are
calculated by multiplying several different factors, including a
standardized payment amount. The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill
corrected the 1.6 percent disparity, but the provision expires at the
end of the fiscal year.
Our bill also acknowledges that low-volume hospitals have a higher
cost per case, which results in negative operation margins. To
alleviate this problem, H-CARE creates a low-volume inpatient payment
adjustment for hospitals that have less than 2,000 annual discharges
per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This
provision will improve payments for more than one-third of all rural
hospitals. Almost two-thirds of Wyoming hospitals would qualify for the
low-volume provisions in H-CARE, which would result in $26.5 million in
increased payments over 10 years.
Rural hospitals have long sought changes to the wage index which
adjusts hospital inpatient payments to reflect the effect of their
labor costs. Currently, the labor-related share of hospital inpatient
payments is set nationally at 71 percent. As rural hospitals generally
have a lower wage index than their urban counterparts, their inpatient
payment is adjusted downward. H-CARE would lower the labor-related
percent from 71 percent to 62 percent, which will increase payments to
rural hospitals.
There are now more than 700 hospitals nationwide that have converted
to Critical Access Hospital status. This program was created in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and allows our smallest communities crucial
access to 24 hour emergency services and some hospital care in their
home towns. Almost 25 percent of my State's hospitals have downsized to
Critical Access Hospital status. H-CARE contains several provisions to
strengthen this important rural hospital program.
It is time for the Federal Government to recognize that rural
hospitals are long overdue for a fair shake from the Medicare program.
Rural providers care for patients under different circumstances than
urban hospitals and H-CARE ensures that rural hospitals are paid
accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an
interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation.
I also want to thank the American Hospital Association, the
Federation of American Hospitals, Premier and the National Rural Health
Association for their work and support in this effort.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 817. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code,
relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of
discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in
Litigation Act of 2003, a measure to address the abuse of secrecy
orders issued by federal courts. All too often, courts sign off on
secret settlements that shield important public health and safety
information from the public view from mothers and fathers and children
whose lives are potentially at stake, and from public officials we have
asked to protect our health and safety.
The problem is a simple one and has been recurring for decades. An
individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an
injury or fatality resulting from a product defect. The plaintiff,
often reticent to continue the litigation process because of grief or
lack of resources, settles the lawsuit quickly. In exchange, the
defendant insists that the plaintiff agree to the inclusion of a
confidentiality clause. This mechanism prevents either party from
disclosing information revealed during the process of litigation. Both
of the parties to the lawsuit believe that they have ``won'': the
plaintiff won a satisfactory financial settlement, and the defendant
won the right to conceal ``smoking gun'' documents.
But not everybody wins. Future victims of injuries or fatalities
resulting from the same product defect lose, because they or their
families must ``re-invent the wheel'' as they litigate virtually the
same case. Even worse, the American public loses with this outcome,
because they remain unaware of the critical public health and safety
information which could prevent harm and save lives.
Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders
when ``good cause'' is shown. But these protective orders are being
misused. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers and pharmaceutical
companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide
information which, if it became public, could protect the American
public but endanger their business or reputation. We can all agree that
the only appropriate use for such orders is to protect trade secrets
and other truly confidential company information and our legislation
makes sure it is protected. But protective orders are certainly not
supposed to be used to hide public safety information from the public,
especially when such information is neither trade secret nor
proprietary.
There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders
accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence
suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent.
Let me share some examples that illustrate the dangerous and often
deadly consequences
[[Page S4964]]
that result from protective orders: Although an internal memo suggests
that General Motors, ``GM'', was aware of the risk of fire deaths from
crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated
750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. When
victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders and
settled these cases only on the condition that these documents remained
secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being
discontinued.
Sixteen month-old Michael Bancroft was buckled into a Kolcraft
booster-style safety seat in his mother's car when the car was involved
in an accident. Due to a defect in product design, however, the seat
did not protect him from a broken neck and paralysis. Kolcraft and the
Bancrofts settled for $4.25 million and signed a confidentiality
agreement that concealed the product's defect. Because this information
remained a secret, countless parents continued to feel a false sense of
safety when securing their children in Kolcraft safety seats.
From 1992-2000, tread separation of certain Bridgestone and Firestone
tires caused a great number of car accidents, many involving serious
injuries or fatalities. Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of
lawsuits resulting from faulty tire crashes, most of which included
secrecy agreements. It was only in 1999, when a Houston public
television broke the story, that the company admitted the defect and
recalled 6.5 million tires.
Some States have been proactive in dealing with this problem.
Florida, for example, has in place a Sunshine in Litigation law that
severely limits the ability of parties to conceal information that
effects public health and safety. Michigan has a rule that requires
that secret settlements be unsealed two years after they are approved.
And just last year, the judges of the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina unanimously agreed not to accept any
secret settlements at all.
While these steps indicate movement in the right direction, we still
have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a federal solution for
this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that
would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to
ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the
public interest in information related to public health and safety.
Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or
sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a particularized
finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of
information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts,
both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective
orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies.
And don't just take it from me. During his confirmation hearings
before the Judiciary Committee in January 2001, Attorney General John
Ashcroft voiced his support for this legislation, saying, ``I think
unnecessarily hiding or otherwise concealing from the public those
[public health and safety hazards] would be against the interests of
the people . . . I think there's great danger in not providing public
information.''
This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the
board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It
simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs
legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important
health and safety information from the public and from regulators. This
is an entirely reasonable balancing test. It is time to eliminate the
dark dangers of court secrecy and bring matters of public health and
safety into the light, where they belong.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bond, Mr. Pryor, and
Mr. Harkin:
S 818. A bill to ensure the independence and nonpartisan operation of
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Independent
Office of Advocacy Act of 2003.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy is,
unfortunately, one of our government's best kept secrets, and in many
cases, the best hope for small businesses faced with over burdensome
Federal regulations. The Office of Advocacy serves two critical roles:
1. it represents small business' interests before the Federal
government in regulatory matters--taking advantage of its statutorily
granted independence to argue against regulatory actions that impose
too great a burden on small businesses to our economy and the forces
that have an effect on them.
This bill is designed to build on the success achieved by the Office
of Advocacy over the past 26 years and to strengthen that foundation by
making the Office of Advocacy a stronger, more effective advocate for
all small businesses throughout the United States. This bill was
approved unanimously by the Senate during the 106th and 107th
Congresses. However, regrettably, the House failed to act in both
cases.
The Office of Advocacy, headed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is
a unique office with the Federal government. It is part of the SBA, and
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy is nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended
to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal
Government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government
policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the
views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies
in rulemaking activities. These roles can sometimes come into conflict.
The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' resolves such
conflicts in favor of the small businesses that rely on the Chief
Counsel and the Office of Advocacy to be a fully independent advocate
within the Executive Branch acting on their behalf. The bill would
establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy must fight on
behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position taken on
critical issues by the President and his or her Administration.
The Office of Advocacy, under the direction of the Chief Counsel, as
envisioned by the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'', would
be a wide-ranging advocate, free to take positions contrary to the
Administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs
and attitudes as they affect small businesses. During its consideration
of the bill in 1999, the Committee on Small Business adopted
unanimously an amendment to require the Chief Counsel to be appointed
``from civilian life.'' This qualification is intended to emphasize
that the person nominated to serve in this important role should have a
strong small business background.
In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be
the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal
government. Since then, the Office of Advocacy has become the
``independent'' voice for small business. Unfortunately, in certain
cases, the Office has not been as independent as necessary to do the
job for small business.
For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy currently comes from
the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is
allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the
overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-
time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of
Advocacy. The current allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually
on-board as the result of the long-standing hiring freeze at the SBA.
The independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of
Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new
programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the
discretion of the Administrator.
To address this problem, the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of
2003'' builds a firewall to prevent political intrusion into the
management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy similar
to the one that protects Inspectors General. The bill would require the
Federal budget to include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy
drawn directly from General Fund of the Treasury. No longer would its
funds come from the general operating account of the SBA. This will
free the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from having to seek approval from
the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy.
[[Page S4965]]
Additionally, the bill provides that any funds appropriated will
remain available without fiscal year limitation until expended. This
will give the Chief Counsel the flexibility to use these funds as
necessary instead of being forced to spend them, perhaps prematurely,
because of the coming end of a fiscal year.
The bill would leave unchanged current law that allows the Chief
Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of
advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures
directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM.
This long-standing special hiring authority, which is limited only to
employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it
allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best
assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems
confronting small businesses.
As the New Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I have heard repeatedly about the importance of the
Office of Advocacy and the vital role it plays for small enterprises
and the self employed across the nation. With these comments in mind, I
am committed to ensuring the complete independence of the Office of
Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all
small businesses. However, so long as any administration controls the
budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy, the independence of the
Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the
sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business
community.
In addition to resolving the critical funding issues, the
``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' would direct the Chief
Counsel to submit an annual report on Federal agency compliance with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, to the President, the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, House Committee on
Small Business, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House
Committee on Government Reform, and the Senate and House Committees on
the Judiciary.
The RFA is a very important weapon in the war against the over-
regulation of small businesses. It requires agencies to analyze their
regulations to determine their impact on small businesses before they
are proposed and to explore alternatives to reduce the regulatory
burden. In August, 2002, President Bush issued Executive Order 13272,
which requires Federal agencies to establish plans detailing how they
will handle their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
directs the Office of Advocacy to work with the agencies in developing
these plans. In addition, the Executive Order directs the agencies to
respond to comments from the Office of Advocacy regarding the agencies'
analyses. Thus, there is even more reason today to have the Chief
Counsel report to the President and Congress on how Federal agencies
are complying with the Regulatory Flexibility Act than there was when
this bill was introduced in previous Congresses.
The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' is a sound bill.
It is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and
consideration by me; the former Chairman of the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Bond; staff of the Committee;
representatives of the small business community; former Chief Counsels
for Advocacy and many others. In short, this bill has been thoroughly
vetted in my Committee and has been approved unanimously by the Senate
in 1999 and 2001. It is time we see this bill enacted into law, and I
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation for America's
small businesses and entrepreneurs. I look forward to moving this bill
through the Senate again, and hope that the third time will lead to the
President's desk.
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. 818
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 ``Independent Office of
Advocacy Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) excessive regulations continue to burden United States
small business concerns;
(2) Federal agencies are reluctant to comply with the
requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, and
continue to propose regulations that impose disproportionate
burdens on small entities;
(3) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (referred to in this Act as the ``Office'') is
an effective advocate for small entities, including small
business concerns, that can help to ensure that agencies are
responsive to small business concerns and that agencies
comply with their statutory obligations under chapter 6 of
title 5, United States Code, and under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
121; 106 Stat. 4249 et seq.);
(4) the independence of the Office is essential to ensure
that it can serve as an effective advocate for small business
concerns without being restricted by the views or policies of
the Small Business Administration or any other executive
branch agency;
(5) the Office needs sufficient resources to conduct the
research required to assess effectively the impact of
regulations on small business concerns; and
(6) the research, information, and expertise of the Office
make it a valuable adviser to Congress as well as the
executive branch agencies with which the Office works on
behalf of small business concerns.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure that the Office has the statutory
independence and adequate financial resources to advocate for
and on behalf of small business concerns;
(2) to require that the Office report to the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the Committees on Small Business of the
Senate and the House of Representatives and the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration in order to keep them
fully and currently informed about issues and regulations
affecting small business concerns and the necessity for
corrective action by the regulatory agency or the Congress;
(3) to provide a separate authorization for appropriations
for the Office;
(4) to authorize the Office to report to the President and
to the Congress regarding agency compliance with chapter 6 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(5) to enhance the role of the Office pursuant to chapter 6
of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 4. OFFICE OF ADVOCACY.
(a) In General.--Title II of Public Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C.
634a et seq.) is amended by striking sections 201 through 203
and inserting the following:
``SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
``This title may be cited as the `Office of Advocacy Act'.
``SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title--
``(1) the term `Administration' means the Small Business
Administration;
``(2) the term `Administrator' means the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration;
``(3) the term `Chief Counsel' means the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy appointed under section 203;
``(4) the term `Office' means the Office of Advocacy
established under section 203; and
``(5) the term `small business concern' has the same
meaning as in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632).
``SEC. 203. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ADVOCACY.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established in the
Administration an Office of Advocacy.
``(2) Appropriation requests.--Each budget of the United
States Government submitted by the President under section
1105 of title 31, United States Code, shall include a
separate statement of the amount of appropriations requested
for the Office of Advocacy, which shall be designated in a
separate account in the General Fund of the Treasury.
``(b) Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--
``(1) In general.--The management of the Office shall be
vested in a Chief Counsel for Advocacy, who shall be
appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to
political affiliation and solely on the ground of fitness to
perform the duties of the office.
``(2) Employment restriction.--The individual appointed to
the office of Chief Counsel may not serve as an officer or
employee of the Administration during the 5-year period
preceding the date of appointment.
``(c) Primary Functions.--The Office shall--
``(1) examine the role of small business concerns in the
economy of the United States and the contribution that small
business concerns can make in improving competition,
encouraging economic and social mobility for all citizens,
restraining inflation, spurring production, expanding
employment opportunities, increasing productivity, promoting
exports, stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship, and
providing the means by which new and untested products and
services can be brought to the marketplace;
``(2) assess the effectiveness of Federal subsidy and
assistance programs for small business concerns and the
desirability of reducing the emphasis on those programs and
increasing the emphasis on general assistance
[[Page S4966]]
programs designed to benefit all small business concerns;
``(3) measure the direct costs and other effects of
government regulation of small business concerns, and make
legislative, regulatory, and nonlegislative proposals for
eliminating the excessive or unnecessary regulation of small
business concerns;
``(4) determine the impact of the tax structure on small
business concerns and make legislative, regulatory, and other
proposals for altering the tax structure to enable all small
business concerns to realize their potential for contributing
to the improvement of the Nation's economic well-being;
``(5) study the ability of financial markets and
institutions to meet the credit needs of small business
concerns, and determine the impact of government demands on
credit for small business concerns;
``(6) determine financial resource availability and
recommend, with respect to small business concerns, methods
for--
``(A) delivery of financial assistance, including methods
for securing equity capital, to small business concerns--
``(i) owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals;
``(ii) owned and controlled by women;
``(iii) owned and controlled by veterans; or
``(iv) designated as HUBZone small business concerns by the
Administration;
``(B) generating markets for goods and services;
``(C) providing effective business education, more
effective management and technical assistance, and training;
and
``(D) assistance in complying with Federal, State, and
local laws;
``(7) evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies and the
private sector to assist small business concerns--
``(i) owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals;
``(ii) owned and controlled by women;
``(iii) owned and controlled by veterans; or
``(iv) designated as HUBZone small business concerns by the
Administration;
``(8) make such recommendations as may be appropriate to
assist the development and strengthening of small business
concerns--
``(i) owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals;
``(ii) owned and controlled by women;
``(iii) owned and controlled by veterans; or
``(iv) designated as HUBZone small business concerns by the
Administration;
``(9) recommend specific measures for creating an
environment in which all small business concerns will have
the opportunity--
``(A) to compete effectively and expand to their full
potential; and
``(B) to ascertain any common reasons for the successes and
failures of small business concerns;
``(10) determine the desirability of developing a set of
rational, objective criteria to be used to define the term
`small business concern', and develop such criteria, if
appropriate;
``(11) make recommendations and submit reports to the
Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committees on Small
Business of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
the Administrator with respect to issues and regulations
affecting small business concerns and the necessity for
corrective action by the Administrator, any Federal
department or agency, or the Congress; and
``(12) evaluate the efforts of each department and agency
of the United States, and of private industry, to assist
small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, as
defined in section 3(q) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(q)), and small business concerns owned and controlled by
serviced-disabled veterans, as defined in such section 3(q),
and to provide statistical information on the utilization of
such programs by such small business concerns, and to make
appropriate recommendations to the Administrator and to the
Congress in order to promote the establishment and growth of
those small business concerns.
``(d) Additional Functions.--The Office shall, on a
continuing basis--
``(1) serve as a focal point for the receipt of complaints,
criticisms, and suggestions concerning the policies and
activities of the Administration and any other department or
agency of the Federal Government that affects small business
concerns;
``(2) counsel small business concerns on the means by which
to resolve questions and problems concerning the relationship
between small business and the Federal Government;
``(3) develop proposals for changes in the policies and
activities of any agency of the Federal Government that will
better fulfill the purposes of this title and communicate
such proposals to the appropriate Federal agencies;
``(4) represent the views and interests of small business
concerns before other Federal agencies whose policies and
activities may affect small business;
``(5) enlist the cooperation and assistance of public and
private agencies, businesses, and other organizations in
disseminating information about the programs and services
provided by the Federal Government that are of benefit to
small business concerns, and information on the means by
which small business concerns can participate in or make use
of such programs and services; and
``(6) carry out the responsibilities of the Office under
chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
``(e) Overhead and Administrative Support.--The
Administrator shall provide the Office with appropriate and
adequate office space at central and field office locations
of the Administration, together with such equipment, office
supplies, and communications facilities and services as may
be necessary for the operation of such offices, and shall
provide necessary maintenance services for such offices and
the equipment and facilities located therein.''.
(b) Reports to Congress.--Title II of Public Law 94-305 (15
U.S.C. 634a et seq.) is amended by striking section 206 and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 206. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
``(a) Annual Reports.--Not less than annually, the Chief
Counsel shall submit to the President and to the Committees
on Small Business of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committees on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, a report on agency
compliance with chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Additional Reports.--In addition to the reports
required under subsection (a) of this section and section
203(c)(11), the Chief Counsel may prepare and publish such
reports as the Chief Counsel determines to be appropriate.
``(c) Prohibition.--No report under this title shall be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget or to any
other department or agency of the Federal Government for any
purpose before submission of the report to the President and
to the Congress.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Title II of Public
Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C. 634a et seq.) is amended by striking
section 207 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Office to carry out this title, such sums as may be
necessary for each fiscal year.
``(b) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under
subsection (a) shall remain available, without fiscal year
limitation, until expended.''.
(d) Incumbent Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--The individual
serving as the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration on the date of enactment of this Act
shall continue to serve in that position after such date in
accordance with section 203 of the Office of Advocacy Act, as
amended by this section.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and
colleague, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Olympia Snowe, in reintroducing the ``Independent
Office of Advocacy Act'', which our Committee and the full Senate
endorsed unanimously last Congress. This legislation will help ensure
the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office of Advocacy has the
necessary autonomy to remain an independent voice for America's small
businesses. I would like to thank Senator Snowe and her staff for
working with me and my staff to make the necessary changes to this
legislation to garner bipartisan support.
The independent Office of Advocacy Act rewrites the law that created
the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy to allow for
increased autonomy. It reaffirms the Office's statutory and financial
independence by creating a separate funding account for the Office from
the General Fund of the Treasury instead of being allocated through the
SBA's annual appropriation.
At its heart, this legislation will allow the Office of Advocacy to
better represent small business interests before Congress, Federal
agencies, and the Federal Government without fear of reprisal for
disagreeing with the position of any current Administration.
For those of my colleagues without an intimate knowledge of the
critical role the Office of Advocacy and its Chief Counsel play in
protecting and promoting America's small businesses, I will briefly
elaborate its important functions and achievements. From studying the
role of small business in the U.S. economy, to promoting small business
exports, to advocating for the best interests of small business in a
myriad of areas, to lightening the regulatory burden of small
businesses through the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, and the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, the Office of
Advocacy has a wide scope of authority and responsibility.
The U.S. Congress created the Office of Advocacy, headed by a Chief
Counsel to be appointed by the President from the private sector and
confirmed by the Senate, in June of 1976. The rationale was to give
small businesses a louder voice in the councils of government.
Each year, the Office of Advocacy advises Congress and the executive
branch regarding policy issues affecting small businesses, brings
together
[[Page S4967]]
small business people with members of Congress, congressional staff and
executive branch officials to resolve issues affecting small business,
publishes numerous studies and reports, compiles vast amounts of data
and successfully lightens the regulatory burden on America's small
businesses. In the area of contracting, the Office of Advocacy
developed PRO-Net, a database of small businesses used by Federal
contracting officers to find small business interests interested in
selling to the Federal Government.
The U.S. Congress, the Administration, and, of course, small
businesses have all benefited from the work of the Office of Advocacy.
In October 2001, an Advocacy research study titled, The Impact of
Regulatory Costs on Small Business, established that small businesses
with less than 20 employees spend nearly $7,000 each year, per employee
just to comply with Federal regulations and mandates. By working with
Federal agencies to implement the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Office of Advocacy in 2002 saved small businesses over $21 billion in
foregone regulatory costs that can now be used to create jobs, buy
equipment and expand access to health care for millions of Americans.
Small businesses remain the backbone of the U.S. economy. According
to a study conducted by the Small business Administration Office of
Economic Research and released in January 2003, small businesses
account for approximately 99 percent of all employers, account for 51
percent of private-sector output, represent 52 percent of GDP and, in
2002, provided two-thirds of all net new jobs.
Small businesses have also taken the lead in moving people from
welfare to work and an increasing number of women and minorities are
turning to small business ownership as a means to gain economic self-
sufficiency. Put simply, small businesses represent what is best in the
United States economy, providing innovation, competition and
entrepreneurship.
Their interests are vast, their activities divergent, and the
difficulties they face to stay in business are numerous. To provide the
necessary support to help them, SBA's Office of Advocacy needs our
support.
The responsibility and authority given the Office of Advocacy and the
Chief Counsel are crucial to their ability to be an effective
independent voice in the Federal Government for small businesses. This
bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small
Business Legislative Council and the National Federation of Independent
Businesses. Small businesses are asking us to do everything we can to
protect and strengthen this essential office. I believe this
legislation accomplishes that important goal.
I have always been a strong supporter of the Office of Advocacy and I
am pleased to join with Chairwoman Snowe in introducing this
legislation, which will ensure that the Office of Advocacy remains an
independent and effective voice representing America's small
businesses.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Campbell):
S. 819. A bill to amend the definition of a law enforcement officer
under subchapter III of chapter 83 and chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code, respectively, to ensure the inclusion of certain
positions; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law
Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity act of 2003. I am proud to be
joined on this bill by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Leahy and
Campbell. This legislation will ensure that all Federal law enforcement
officers have the same retirement options and that their pay and
benefits conform with the Federal law enforcement retirement system.
Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and
firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal
service. But, some Federal law enforcement personnel, such as customs
and immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security or
police officers at Veterans Affairs, are not eligible for these same
benefits. This legislation will amend current law and grant the same
pay and 20-year retirement to all law enforcement officers.
We must honor our Federal law enforcement personnel. The names of
Federal law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty are
engraved on the Law Enforcement Memorial. We include the names of the
officers from Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. We honor them
when they die, but we don't recognize them when they are living.
We need to make sure that all Federal law enforcement officers earn
the pay and benefits that they deserve. These brave men and women are
the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling
of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the same law enforcement
training as all other law enforcement personnel, and face the same
risks and challenges.
For example, U.S. Customs inspectors are responsible for the most
arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Yet, they do not
qualify for law enforcement officer status. Along with U.S. customs
agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping provide
additional security at the Nation's airports and help enforce U.S.
customs laws. They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at
the World Trade Center. After September 11, Customs inspectors are
playing a critical role in ensuring that terrorists don't get their
hands on weapons of mass destruction and smuggle them into the country.
In 2002, the U.S. Custom Service impounded over 4,100 pounds of
heroin and 167,000 pounds of cocaine, and confiscated over 39,000
firearms and 6.4 million rounds of ammunition. In fact, on a typical
day, employees of the Customs Service inspect over 57,000 trucks and
containers. Customers inspectors are vital in winning the war on drugs
and keeping America safe from terrorism.
Like customs inspectors, immigration inspectors at the Department of
Homeland Security are also on the front lines of defense against
terrorism. Immigration inspectors enforce the Nation's immigration laws
at more than 300 ports of entry. In the normal course of their duties,
they enforce criminal law, make arrests, interrogate applicants for
entry, search persons and effects, and seize evidence. Inspector's
responsibilities have become increasing complex as political, economic
and social unrest has increased globally. The threat of terrorism only
increases these responsibilities.
These immigration inspectors help secure our borders. In FY 2001,
over 510 million inspections were performed by these inspectors with
700,000 individuals denied entry, and approximately 71,000 criminal
aliens were removed from the country.
This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this
act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased
revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical
employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease
employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention
of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal
employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to
other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level
of benefits.
This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue
officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper
collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. This
bill is supported by the Fraternal Orders of Police and the National
Treasury Employees Union. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this
Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it
enacted.
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. 819
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers
Retirement Equity Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.
(a) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (17) of section 8401 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of subparagraph (C), and by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S4968]]
``(E) an employee (not otherwise covered by this
paragraph)--
``(i) the duties of whose position include the
investigation or apprehension of individuals suspected or
convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United
States; and
``(ii) who is authorized to carry a firearm; and
``(F) an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, the
duties of whose position are primarily the collection of
delinquent taxes and the securing of delinquent returns;''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8401(17)(C) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``(A) and (B)''
and inserting ``(A), (B), (E), and (F)''.
(b) Civil Service Retirement System.--Paragraph (20) of
section 8331 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after ``position.'' the following: ``For the
purpose of this paragraph, the employees described in the
preceding provision of this paragraph (in the matter before
`including') shall be considered to include an employee (not
otherwise covered by this paragraph) who satisfies clauses
(i) and (ii) of section 8401(17)(E) and an employee of the
Internal Revenue Service the duties of whose position are as
described in section 8401(17)(F).''.
(c) Effective Date.--Except as provided in section 3, the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply only in the
case of any individual first appointed (or seeking to be
first appointed) as a law enforcement officer (within the
meaning of those amendments) on or after such date.
SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF SERVICE PERFORMED BY INCUMBENTS.
(a) Law Enforcement Officer and Service Described.--
(1) Law enforcement officer.--Any reference to a law
enforcement officer described in this subsection refers to an
individual who satisfies the requirements of section 8331(20)
or 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code (relating to the
definition of a law enforcement officer) by virtue of the
amendments made by section 2.
(2) Service.--Any reference to service described in this
subsection refers to service performed as a law enforcement
officer (as described in this subsection).
(b) Incumbent Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``incumbent'' means an individual who--
(1) is first appointed as a law enforcement officer (as
described in subsection (a)) before the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(2) is serving as such a law enforcement officer on such
date.
(c) Treatment of Service Performed by Incumbents.--
(1) In general.--Service described in subsection (a) which
is performed by an incumbent on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act shall, for all purposes (other than
those to which paragraph (2) pertains), be treated as service
performed as a law enforcement officer (within the meaning of
section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code,
as appropriate), irrespective of how such service is treated
under paragraph (2).
(2) Retirement.--Service described in subsection (a) which
is performed by an incumbent before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act shall, for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 83 and chapter 84 of title 5, United States
Code, be treated as service performed as a law enforcement
officer (within the meaning of such section 8331(20) or
8401(17), as appropriate), but only if an appropriate written
election is submitted to the Office of Personnel Management
within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act or
before separation from Government service, whichever is
earlier.
(d) Individual Contributions for Prior Service.--
(1) In general.--An individual who makes an election under
subsection (c)(2) may, with respect to prior service
performed by such individual, contribute to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund the difference between the
individual contributions that were actually made for such
service and the individual contributions that should have
been made for such service if the amendments made by section
2 had then been in effect.
(2) Effect of not contributing.--If no part of or less than
the full amount required under paragraph (1) is paid, all
prior service of the incumbent shall remain fully creditable
as law enforcement officer service, but the resulting annuity
shall be reduced in a manner similar to that described in
section 8334(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, to the
extent necessary to make up the amount unpaid.
(3) Prior service defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``prior service'' means, with respect to any
individual who makes an election under subsection (c)(2),
service (described in subsection (a)) performed by such
individual before the date as of which appropriate retirement
deductions begin to be made in accordance with such election.
(e) Government Contributions for Prior Service.--
(1) In general.--If an incumbent makes an election under
subsection (c)(2), the agency in or under which that
individual was serving at the time of any prior service
(referred to in subsection (d)) shall remit to the Office of
Personnel Management, for deposit in the Treasury of the
United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund, the amount required under paragraph (2)
with respect to such service.
(2) Amount required.--The amount an agency is required to
remit is, with respect to any prior service, the total amount
of additional Government contributions to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (over and above those actually
paid) that would have been required if the amendments made by
section 2 had then been in effect.
(3) Contributions to be made ratably.--Government
contributions under this subsection on behalf of an incumbent
shall be made by the agency ratably (on at least an annual
basis) over the 10-year period beginning on the date referred
to in subsection (d)(3).
(f) Exemption From Mandatory Separation.--Nothing in
section 8335(b) or 8425(b) of title 5, United States Code,
shall cause the involuntary separation of a law enforcement
officer (as described in subsection (a)) before the end of
the 3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(g) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Mangement shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this Act, including--
(1) provisions in accordance with which interest on any
amount under subsection (d) or (e) shall be computed, based
on section 8334(e) of title 5, United States Code; and
(2) provisions for the application of this section in the
case of--
(A) any individual who--
(i) satisfies paragraph (1) (but not paragraph (2)) of
subsection (b); and
(ii) serves as a law enforcement officer (as described in
subsection (a)) after the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(B) any individual entitled to a survivor annuity (based on
the service of an incumbent, or of an individual under
subparagraph (A), who dies before making an election under
subsection (c)(2)), to the extent of any rights that would
then be available to the decedent (if still living).
(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
considered to apply in the case of a reemployed annuitant.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 820. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
establish a perchlorate pollution prevention fund and to establish
safety standards applicable to owners and operators of perchlorate
storage facilities; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
guaranteeing a community's right-to-know about pollution discharges,
seepage and potential drinking water contamination by the toxic
chemical perchlorate.
Perchlorate is the main ingredient in rocket fuel, which accounts for
90 percent of its use. Perchlorate is also used in lesser amounts for
ammunition, fireworks, and other products. It dissolves readily in many
liquids, including water, and moves easily and quickly.
The sources of drinking water for up to 10 million Californians and
millions of other Americans are contaminated with perchlorate. Alarming
levels of perchlorate have been discovered in Lake Mead and the
Colorado River, the drinking water source for millions of Southern
Californians. Communities in the Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley,
Santa Clara Valley, and the Sacramento area are also grappling with
perchlorate contamination. In addition, more than 20 million Americans
in at least 19 states drink water contaminated with perchlorate.
Perchlorate is a clear and present danger to California's public
health. Perchlorate poses a variety of serious health risks relating to
thyroid function, especially in newborns, children, and pregnant women.
Exposure to perchlorate interferes with the thyroid gland's ability to
produce the hormones needed for normal prenatal development. This can
cause both physical and mental retardation. Perchlorate is also linked
to thyroid cancer.
Despite the gravity of the situation, we currently have no way of
knowing who is dumping it or where they are dumping it. We cannot wait
four more years to address this threat while EPA continues to delay
regulation and clean ups. Communities need to get moving to protect
their drinking water sooner rather than later. Guaranteeing a community
the right-to-know about potential perchlorate contamination is a first
step.
My bill would do just this. First, my bill addresses the legacy of
perchlorate contamination by requiring anyone who has stored more than
375 pounds of perchlorate since January 1, 1950, to report annually to
the U.S. EPA, beginning no later than June 1, 2005. This does not apply
to facilities that store
[[Page S4969]]
perchlorate for a retail or law enforcement purpose. EPA must annually
publish the list of all perchlorate storage facilities in existence
since January 1, 1950, beginning no later than June 1, 2005.
Second, my bill would also require anyone who discharges perchlorate
into the water to report the discharge, its volume, monitoring methods,
and remedial actions to the EPA. EPA must publish this information
annually in the Federal Register beginning no later than June 1, 2005.
Third, failure to report as required under my bill would result in
fines. All fines will be deposited into a loan fund for public water
suppliers and private well owners to pay for clean water when their
water supply is shut down because of perchlorate contamination.
Communities have a right to know what is in their water and where it
comes from. My bill will ensure that communities have the necessary
information to act now to address the health threat of perchlorate. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 821. A bill to accelerate the commercialization and widespread use
of hydrogen energy and fuel cell technologies, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, imagine a world with cars that spew out no
smog, no toxic emissions, and no greenhouse gases. The only thing that
would come out of the tailpipe would be water pure enough to drink.
Imagine a world in which we don't import a drop of Mideast oil,
because clean, domestic, renewable energy sources meet all of our
needs.
Imagine a world in which we don't need to worry about a terrorist
strike on our large nuclear power plants, or a storm causing a blackout
over a large region, because we get all of our electricity from small
distributed generators on farms and in buildings throughout the
country.
Sound too good to be true? The technology to do this, using hydrogen
energy and fuel cells, is out of the labs and being tested on our
streets and in our buildings today. For those of us who have been
working for many years to bring this vision into reality, that is very
exciting. But we still need a major effort to bring the costs down and
commercialize the technology.
And there is remarkable bipartisan agreement on the need for
government action. A couple years ago we were fighting for scraps of
funding. Now the President has proposed $1.7 billion over 5 years
toward getting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road. The Senate
energy bill last year, before it died in conference, included tax
incentives for stationary fuel cells, fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen
vehicles, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, and hydrogen fuel.
But we are still too timid to bring about the fundamental shift to
the hydrogen economy. The Department of Energy is working toward a go-
no go decision by the car companies by 2015, and mass production of
vehicles by 2020. But the car companies themselves have been talking
about commercial vehicles by 2010.
We need a bolder, more comprehensive plan. That's why I am
introducing the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act of 2003. This bill
addresses three critical requirements to bringing hydrogen energy and
fuel cells into commerce, and start gaining their environmental and
security benefits, as soon as technically feasible.
First we need a technological push. We need better fuel cell stack
components to reduce costs and improve longevity. We need lighter, more
efficient ways to store hydrogen on-board vehicles. In the long term,
we need cheaper ways of converting renewable energy to hydrogen fuel.
This bill reauthorizes the Matsunaga Act, which established the
Federal hydrogen energy research program. It updates the language and
sets clearer priorities. It expands the authorization to cover fuel
cell research and development as well, to reflect the technical and
bureaucratic reality that research on fuel cells--the most efficient,
flexible, and cleanest way to use hydrogen energy--has become
inextricably linked to research on hydrogen energy. It supports work on
domestic and international codes and standards, to work through a major
regulatory barrier to working with combustible hydrogen and to making
all the infrastructure pieces fit together. It includes a specific
mandate to do public education on hydrogen and fuel cells and to do
university training in critical skills needed in the industry. And it
increases funding levels over the next few years to accelerate progress
in pre-commercial technologies.
Second, and perhaps most important right now, we need a near-term
demand pull. As long as the fuel cells and hydrogen appliances are made
by hand, they will remain very expensive. But it's also expensive to
build the factories to build them more cheaply. We need support to get
industry over that initial cost hump.
The first step is large demonstration programs that serve a dual
purpose: they provide a realistic test of how the laboratory
technologies work in the real world, and they provide funding for pre-
commercial prototypes of the technologies, including starting to build
a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act authorizes several new, large
demonstration programs:
The main demostration program would provide over $1 billion over 7
years for demonstrations of the full range of fuel cell applications
and associated hydrogen infrastructure. These demonstrations would
include fleets of fuel cell passenger vehicles, fuel cell buses and
farm vehicles, stationary fuel cells in houses and commercial
buildings, and portable fuel cells such as auxiliary power units in
trucks.
A second, closely related program, would provide hydrogen fueling
infrastructure over major transportation corridors and entire regions,
and then demonstrate hydrogen-powered vehicles that are not tethered to
a single pump. Early demonstrations, at least, would likely use
vehicles that burn hydrogen; these are similar to gas-electric hybrids
that you can buy today, but run on hydrogen rather than gasoline. These
vehicles provide most of the benefits of fuel cell vehicles at a
fraction of the current cost. They are not as good as fuel cell
vehicles in the long term, they are less efficient, less flexible, and
produce a little pollution, but would move us a long way toward the
goal and would provide a good large-scale test of a hydrogen fueling
system.
A third program would demonstrate hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
in foreign countries. Hydrogen energy could have an early application
in places where a competing fossil fuel infrastructure is not already
well-developed. And assisting this application is in our national
interest in order to promote global development without causing global
warming and other harmful environmental effects, and to increase the
global market for American hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.
The last program would focus on emerging technologies for production
of hydrogen from renewable resources. Two approaches show particular
promise for clean, efficient production of hydrogen at this time.
Biorefineries make hydrogen and other products from biomass. And in
``electrofarming'' the hydrogen is produced and used on the same farm.
The hydrogen might be made by growing and reforming biomass, from wind
energy, or from farm waste; it could be used in farm vehicles and
equipment and for heat and electricity in farm buildings.
All these demonstration programs would be conducted using competitive
merit review of funding proposals from a wide variety of companies and
organizations, and they would require cost-sharing from awardees.
Third, we need to show there will be a market for commercial hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies in the long term. The Federal Government can
do this by buying early commercial products and by providing incentives
to others to do so, in recognition of their public benefits.
The bill includes Federal purchase requirements for both zero
emission vehicles and stationary fuel cells. The vehicle requirements
are similar to Federal fleet requirements for purchase of alternative
fuel vehicles. They would require zero emission vehicles, most likely
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, to make up an increasing percentage of
Federal fleet vehicle purchases up to 75 percent. Alternative fuel
vehicles with very low emissions, such as hydrogen hybrid vehicles,
would get partial credit. For stationary fuel cells, the bill
[[Page S4970]]
would require modifying energy efficiency regulations for Federal
buildings to presume use of fuel cells to power new Federal buildings
and to encourage their use in older buildings.
The bill also provides a broad array of tax incentives for stationary
and portable fuel cells, hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen
fueling infrastructure, and hydrogen fuel. These incentives are similar
to those that have been proposed in the CLEAR Act on alternative fuel
vehicles, in previous bills on stationary fuel cells, and in last
year's energy bill. However, this bill makes some important changes. It
makes all the tax credits tradable so that government agencies and non-
profit organizations can use them as well as consumers and private
companies. It increases the credit for hydrogen fueling infrastructure
to recognize the cost of making the hydrogen on-site, not just pumping
it. It adds an additional incentive for hydrogen from renewable
resources to encourage a transition to a sustainable hydrogen system.
And most importantly, it extends the tax credits so the industry will
know the incentives will be there when they are needed--when real
commercial products are available.
Finally, the bill ensures effective coordination and oversight of the
expanded Federal hydrogen and fuel cell energy activities, with a new
interagency task force to coordinate activities, a revamped technical
advisory panel, and periodic outside review by the National Academies.
These measures will require a significant Federal investment in our
energy future. But with these measures we can use hydrogen and fuel
cell technologies to turn into reality a vision of cars that don't
pollute, of power that won't go out, and of feeling less dependent on
an area of the world where we are fighting the second war in recent
years. It is time to take these steps now.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Pryor,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 822. A bill to create a 3-year pilot program that makes small,
non-profit child care businesses eligible for SBA 504 loans; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with most of the country's attention
focused on the war in Iraq, important issues at home are falling
through the cracks. Today I rise to talk about one of the needs of
working moms and dads and their children--child care. We have a
shortage of childcare in this country, and it is a problem for our
families, a problem for our businesses, and a problem for our economy.
The Census Bureau estimates that there are approximately 24 million
school age children with parents who are in the workforce or pursuing
education, and the numbers are growing. There has been a 43 percent
increase in dual-earner families and single parent families over the
last half a century. As parents leave the home for work and education,
the need for quality child care in America continues to increase.
As the Ranking Democrat of the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I think we can foster the establishment and expansion
of existing child care businesses through the Small Business
Administration, SBA. Today with Senators Harkin, Landrieu, Pryor,
Lieberman, Daschle, Bingaman, and Johnson. I am introducing the Child
Care Lending Pilot Act of 2003, a bill to create a three-year pilot
that allows small, non-profit child care providers to access financing
through SBA's 504 loans.
There is a real need to help finance the purchase of buildings, to
expand existing facilities and improve the conditions of established
centers to meet the demand for child care. It is appropriate to provide
financing through the 504 program because it was created to spur
economic development and rebuild communities, and child care is
critical to businesses and their employees. Financing through 504 could
spur the establishment and growth of child care businesses because the
program requires the borrower to put down only between 10 and 20
percent of the loan, making the investment more affordable. Another
advantage of 504 loans is that they have terms of up to 20 years, with
fixed interest rates, allowing small businesses to keep their monthly
payments low and predictable.
As anyone with children knows, quality childcare comes at a very high
cost to a family, and it is especially burdensome to low-income
families. The Children's Defense Fund has estimated that child care for
a 4-year-old in a child care center averages $4,000 to $6,000 per year
in cities and states around the Nation. In all but one state, the
average annual cost of child care in urban area child care centers is
more than the average annual cost of public college tuition.
These high costs make access to child care all but non-existent for
low-income families. While some states have made efforts to provide
grants and loans to assist childcare businesses, more must be done to
increase the supply of childcare and improve the quality of programs
for low-income families. According to the Child Care Bureau, state and
federal funds are so insufficient that only one out of 10 children in
low-income working families who are eligible for assistance under
federal law receives it.
For parts of the country, when affordable child care is available, it
is provided through non-profit child care businesses. I formed a task
force in my home state of Massachusetts to study the state of child
care, and of the many important findings, we discovered that more than
60 percent of the child care providers are non-profit and that there is
a real need to help them finance the purchase of buildings or expand
their existing space. Child care in general is not a high-earning
industry, and the owners don't have spare money lying around. Asking
centers to charge less or cut back on employees is not the way to make
child care more affordable for families and does not serve the children
well. An adequate staff is needed to make sure children receive proper
supervision and support. Furthermore, if centers are asked to lower
their operating costs in order to lower costs to families, the safety
and quality of the child care provided would be in jeopardy.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation so
non-profit childcare providers can access funds to start new centers or
expand and improve upon existing centers. As we have done in
Massachusetts, Senators could bring together 504 lenders, childcare
providers not for-profit and non-profit--and the state department of
child welfare to facilitate the increase of childcare providers in
their states.
As common sense tells us, and the child advocates if we listen, there
is no magic bullet to addressing the shortage of safe and affordable
child care in this country--it takes coordinated and complementary
efforts to make a real difference. This is as much a child welfare
issue as a workforce issue, and it makes sense to leverage one of SBA's
effective resources to try and contribute to making a positive
difference. I argue--we argue--that allowing non-profit child care
centers to receive SBA loans can increase the availability of child
care in the United States. Non-profit child care centers provide the
same quality of care as the for-profit centers, and non-profit centers
often serve our nation's neediest communities. I hope that my
colleagues will recognize the vital role that early education plays in
the development of fine minds and productive citizens and realize that
in this great nation, child care should be available to all families in
all income brackets.
I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support be printed in
the Record. These letters demonstrate that this is a good investment
and good for our country.
There being no objection, the additional materials were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Omni Bank, N.A.,
Houston, Texas, July 30, 2002.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: Please accept this letter as my full
support of the bill, soon to be introduced, proposing a Pilot
Program, operating through the Small Business
Administration's 504 Loan Program, that would allow Day Care
facilities designated as non-profits to be eligible for the
program.
I believe the demand for such a product is strong, and is
fiscally sound. My reasons are as follows:
1. Day Care Centers must carry a non-profit designation in
order to accept children to the center from low-income
families.
[[Page S4971]]
2. These businesses benefit low-income neighborhoods and
enterprise zones by purchasing property, improving the
physical appearance of the community and providing safe
facilities for the children. The ability to utilize the SBA-
504 program would enable these businesses to decrease lease/
payment expense and hence, help more children.
3. These families are in the most need for quality day care
facilities in their community, since many use mass transit to
get to work.
4. Small businesses have provided most of the job growth in
this country in the last ten years. By enabling these Day
Care Centers to operate efficiently and provide quality
facilities, we will be helping small business gain and
maintain employees.
5. Designation as a non-profit business does not equate to
an inability to pay loans, or other business expenses.
OMNIBANK, a 50-year-old community bank in Houston, Texas,
has experienced a consistent demand for loans to Day Care
Centers. Most loan requests from these entities are for the
purpose of acquiring or expanding property (real-estate) or
acquiring transportation equipment. An example of a specific,
recent request follows:
The Executive Director and Owner of Teeter Totter Day Care
Center approached OMNIBANK about a loan to purchase the
building used to house the Center. The owner, an African-
American woman, was experienced in this business. Cash flow
to service the debt was sufficient and appropriate under
prudent leading guidelines. The only deterrent from making a
conventional loan was the amount available for down payment.
Twenty percent or more is usually required.
Under the SBA-504 Program, a ten percent down payment is
allowed and standard procedure for multi-use buildings.
Additionally, it offers a fixed rate on the SBA portion of
the loan. Most small businesses do not have access to fixed
rate mortgages, due to the size of the loan requests, which
enhances the attractiveness of the SBA-504 Program even
further.
As we were preparing the request package, we realized that
a non-profit did not quality. The owner would personally
guarantee the loan, and even agreed to form a for profit
corporation to hold the property, because the underlying
tenant was non-profit it would not work. The owner could not
change Teeter Totter into a for profit corporation without
jeopardizing its subsidies for low-income children.
OMNIBANK and the day care center are located in Houston's
fifth ward, most of which is classified as low to moderate
income. Its population is primarily low-income African
Americans and Hispanics. The project was viewed by the Bank
as a good loan from a business perspective, with many
additional benefits to the community at large.
Ultimately, after appealing to SBA for an exception, and
spending a great deal of time on the project, the loan was
not completed. This delayed a good project from improving
many aspects of an already underserved community, due to a
simple tax classification.
As stated earlier, OMNIBANK receives consistent requests
from day care centers, most of which are non-profit. I
believe that a Pilot Program as proposed, will prove that
these are viable and valuable businesses. I would recommend
that all other standard criteria, proven track record, cash
flow, management expertise, etc. remain.
I look forward to any questions you may have, or any
further examples I can provide.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Cripe
President and Chief Operating Officer.
____
Guild of St. Agnes,
Worcester, MA, July 3, 2002.
Senator John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: It has come to my attention that your
committee is working on legislation that would expand the SBA
504 loan program to non-profit child care centers.
As the Executive Director of the Guild of St. Agnes Child
Care Agency and a member of the Advisory Committee on Child
Care and Small Business, wholeheartedly support this
legislation. The Guild of St. Agnes is a non-profit child
care agency providing child care in Worcester, MA and its
surrounding towns. Presently we care for 1200 children aged
four weeks to twelve years in child care centers, family care
providers' homes and public schools. Of our seven centers, we
currently own one.
Four of our centers are in old, worn-down buildings,
causing us difficulty in recruiting new clients. As we look
towards the future, the Guild of St. Agnes has set a goal of
replacing these centers with new buildings. In order to
accomplish this goal, we need to look for creative funding
sources to support our capital campaign. The SBA 504 loan
program would allow us to invest 10 percent of our own funds
for capital expenses, borrow 50 percent from the government
and secure a bank loan for 40 percent. Not only is this loan
program attractive to banking institutions, it allows child
care agencies like the Guild of St. Agnes to continue to grow
during these economically challenging times.
I urge you to support the SBA 504 loan program legislation.
The future of non-profit child care agencies such as the
Guild of St. Agnes depends no it!
Sincerely,
Edward P. Madaus,
Executive Director.
____
Accion USA,
Boston, MA, July 8, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: My name is Erika Eurkus, and as a
member of your Advisory Committee on Child Care and Small
Business, I am writing to voice my support of expanding the
SBA 504 loan program to include nonprofit child care centers.
I am the greater Boston program director for ACCION USA, a
nonprofit ``micro'' lender whose mission is to make access to
credit a permanent resource to low- and moderate-income small
business owners in the United States--helping to narrow the
income gap and provide economic opportunity to small business
owners throughout the country. Many of the struggling
entrepreneurs we serve are the owners of small, family-based
day care centers.
At ACCION, I regularly come into contact with women and men
whose dream is to operate a successful child care center--to
provide a service to the community while making a better life
from something they love to do. Often, what keeps these
hardworking entrepreneurs from fully realizing that dream is
a lack of working capital to begin and grow their businesses.
Microlenders like ACCION are the only place they can turn for
the crucial capital they need for their businesses. Mauro
Leija, an ACCION client in San Antonio, Texas, has tried--and
failed--to secure capital from commercial banks. ``The loan
officer at the bank said, `Be realistic--you'll never get a
loan. You have no college diploma, no capital, no history
with any bank,' '' Mauro remembers. This lack of economic
opportunity is too often the reality for countless child care
providers--most of whom earn an average of $3 per hour for
their services.
With increased access to capital through the expansion of
the SBA 504 loan program, small, nonprofit day care centers
can continue to provide their valuable services to the
community--and build a better life for their own families at
the same time. Suzanne Morris of Springfield, Massachusetts,
a longtime ACCION USA borrower, already illustrates the
potential successes that an expanded SBA 504--and an
opportunity for capital--will bring to day care owners across
the country. After years of hard work and several small loans
from ACCION, Suzanne has moved her day care out of the home
and has expanded her staff to include seven members of the
community. The business supports her family of four. She also
gives back by training other local home-based day care
providers in Federal nutrition guidelines.
It is my hope that we can all witness more successes like
those of Suzanne by opening the door to funding for small day
care providers. Please include nonprofit child care centers
in the scope of SBA 504.
Sincerely,
Erika Eurkus,
Greater Boston Program Director.
____
Neighborhood Business Builders,
Boston, MA, July 10, 2002.
Senator John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing on behalf of Neighborhood
Business Builders and the Jewish Vocational Service of Boston
in support of legislation to expand availability of SBA 504
loans to non-profit child care centers.
I am currently the Director of Loan Funds at Neighborhood
Business Builders, which is an economic development program
and US SBA Intermediary Microlender. I have been lending and
consulting to small businesses for the past year after
fifteen years in the private sector as founder of three
different companies in Boston and Los Angeles. I have an MPA
from the Kennedy School at Harvard University.
I am on Senator Kerry's Child Care and Small Business
Advisory Committee, and am Co-chair of the Sub Committee on
Family Child Care.
I support legislative change to the 504 loan program
because our committee has uncovered a need for government
support of non-profit child care centers. The basic reason
for this is that, while we recognize a demand for child care
in every part of the country, we do not consider that the
market fails to profitably supply child care in every part of
the country.
For-profit entities are able to access the capital they
need by: (1) Demonstrating demand for the service provided
and (2) Demonstrating ability to service market rate debt
with acceptable risk. Non-profit centers emerge when: (1)
Demonstrated demand for the service is evident, but (2) The
market will not support the true cost of the service
provided. These non-profit centers are unable to access
traditional forms of capital because they cannot demonstrate
an ability to service debt at an acceptable risk.
The SBA 504 loan program would help mitigate the risk to
lenders who will then be able to provide the necessary
capital for the service that we know is in demand. The tax
status of a child care center should be irrelevant, since the
501(C)3 status is only granted
[[Page S4972]]
when there is evidence of a public good being provided.
Sincerely,
Eric Korsh,
Director of Loan Funds, Neighborhood Business Builders.
____
South Eastern Economic
Development Corporation,
Taunton, MA, July 10, 2002.
Chairman John Kerry,
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Re non profit child care center eligibility under the SBA 504
program.
Dear Senator Kerry: As a member of the Advisory Committee
on Child Care and Small Business as well as Vice President at
South Eastern Economic Development (SEED) Corporation, I am
writing in support of the idea of expanding the SBA 504
program to allow for non profit child care centers to be
eligible for financing under the program. SEED Corporation is
a Certified Development Company certified and accredited to
administer the SBA 504 program throughout southeastern
Massachusetts. Over the past 2 years, SEED has been the
number one SBA 504 lender in the state. SEED is also an
approved SBA Microenterprise Intermediary and we have enjoyed
and made use of the ability to provide micro loans to non-
profit child care businesses since the microenterprise
intermediary legislation made the special provision for non
profit child care providers to be eligible for SBA micro loan
funds. My primary responsibilities at SEED include
origination, underwriting and closing SBA 504 loans as well
as the oversight and development of SEED's micro loan and
business assistance activities.
Over the past five years, SEED has assisted over 10 FOR-
PROFIT child care businesses to obtain SBA 504 financing for
their start-up or expansion projects. However, we have also
had to turn away an equal number of non-profit child care
centers that were seeking similar assistance due to the fact
that non profit entities are not eligible under the SBA 504
program.
As we have learned from discussions and analysis with the
Advisory Committee on Child Care and Small Business, access
to long term, fixed market or below-market rate financing is
essential to any child care center. The slim margins that
characterize this industry limit any child care center's
ability to grow. The SBA 504 program offers the type of fixed
rate financing that not only assists the business to keep its
occupancy costs under control but also serves to stabilize
its operations over the long term. The program also provides
an incentive to a bank to provide fixed asset financing to a
business that might not otherwise be able to afford a
conventional commercial mortgage. The non-profit child care
centers provide the same quality of care as the for-profit
centers. Preventing non-profit child care centers from making
use of the SBA 504 program when their for-profit competitors
are able to results in discrimination against the children
they serve; and, in general, the majority of child care
centers operating in our state's neediest areas are non-
profit.
For these reasons, I would like to support your efforts to
expand the SBA 504 program enabling non-profit child care
centers to be eligible for fixed asset financing under the
504 program. Thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Heather Danton,
Vice President.
____
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of
Health and Human Services, Office of Child Care
Services,
Boston, MA, July 11, 2002.
Chairman John Kerry,
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kerry: The Massachusetts Office of Child Care
Services (OCCS) fully supports expansion of the SBA 504 loan
program to include non-profit child care programs. OCCS is
the state's licensing agency responsible for setting and
enforcing strong health, safety and education standards for
child care programs throughout the Commonwealth. OCCS is also
the lead state agency responsible for the administration and
purchase of all human services child care subsidies across
the state. As a result, this agency is greatly invested in
the availability of these child care programs and in
increasing the capacity of child care services to benefit
more families in the Commonwealth.
Currently there are approximately 17,000 licensed child
care facilities in the Commonwealth which can provide
services to over 200,000 children. Many of these facilities
are non-profit programs that serve low-income families that
are receiving child care subsidies to help them become or
remain employed, and families that are or were receiving
TANF. The availability and accessibility of child care is one
of the main reasons that families can continue to
successfully transition from welfare to work. There are
currently approximately 18,000 children on the waiting list
for a child care subsidy. The reauthorization of TANF may
further increase the number of families seeking subsidized
child care and Massachusetts must be ready to provide quality
care. Accordingly, current and future non-profit programs
will greatly benefit from the expansion of the SBA 504 loan
program, as will the families that they serve.
OCCS is a member of the Advisory Committee on Child Care
and Small Business and fully supports the Committee's mission
of uniting the small business and child care communities to
help providers maximize their income while providing quality
child care. Expansion of the SBA 504 loan program will
undoubtedly help expand the availability and accessibility of
quality child care. Thank you for your support of this
important legislation. If I can be of further assistance
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ardith Wieworka,
Commissioner.
____
Western Massachusetts
Enterprise Fund, Inc.,
Greenfield, MA, July 12, 2002.
Senator John Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Russell Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing in strong support of the
legislation to expand the use of the SBA 504 program to
include the financing of non-profit childcare centers.
As a member of Senator Kerry's Childcare Advisory Committee
and the Executive Director of the Western Massachusetts
Enterprise Fund (which makes loans to non-profits), I have
seen a clear need for both more flexible and lower cost
financing.
The SBA 504 program meets both those needs. By providing up
to 40 percent financing, the SBA 504 program can help
childcare centers more easily leverage bank financing.
Additionally, the program offers highly competitive interest
rates.
Finally, allowing the SBA to make loans to non-profit
childcare centers is not new to the agency. The SBA is
already making working capital loans to non-profit childcare
centers through its Microenterprise Loan Fund Program.
If you have any questions, please to not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher Sikes,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Coleman, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 823. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for the expeditious coverage of new medical technology under
the Medicare program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my
colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, as well as Senators Jeffords, Kyl,
Coleman and Clinton, in introducing the Medicare Innovation
Responsiveness Act of 2003.
Given all that is going on in the world today, it is sometimes
difficult to focus on issues related to Medicare coverage, coding and
payment procedures. But we must, because every day there are seniors
and people with disabilities in need of lifesaving and life-enhancing
medical treatments and technologies.
And every day, there are creative people in Pennsylvania, Arkansas,
and all across our great country developing new ways to prevent and
treat illness and save lives. Medicare patients should not be denied
access to these new procedures and technologies because the Medicare
program is slow to respond to innovations in medical care and the
changing needs of patients.
Congress passed legislation with strong bipartisan support in 1999
and in 2000 to try to address these problems. Unfortunately, however,
Medicare has failed to deliver on key commitments in the legislation
and these barriers persist.
That is why we are here today--to introduce legislation that will
finally make timely access to lifesaving advanced medical tests and
treatments for Medicare patients a reality. Our bill builds on
constructive approaches the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
CMS, has taken recently to help Medicare keep up with advancements in
treating patients.
For example, CMS recently took proactive, unprecedented steps to
address one of the newest innovations in minimally invasive cardiology
that will soon be available for patients: drug-eluting stents. These
tiny medal scaffolds, long-used to reopen blocked heart arteries, can
be more effective now that researchers have combined them with time-
released drugs to prevent the growth of unwanted cells. The Agency
established new hospital inpatient codes and reimbursements for the new
stints because it recognized that the technology will quickly become
the standard of care when approved by
[[Page S4973]]
FDA in the coming weeks. The Agency understood the potential the stents
hold to transform patient care and health care delivery--and acted in a
timely fashion.
This forward-looking approach should be the rule, not the exception,
in dealing with new treatment breakthroughs. And that is what our
legislation today seeks to achieve.
At an event where Senator Lincoln and I spoke to underscore the need
for this legislation, we were pleased to be joined by medical
professionals from our respective states, people who took time out of
their busy schedules to come to Washington, DC and help us explain the
importance of some of the provisions in the bill we are introducing
today.
For example, three years after a mandate from Congress, Medicare has
yet to provide special transitional payments for any new medical device
used in the inpatient setting. As a result, Medicare will continue to
take anywhere from 15 months to five years to integrate a new medical
technology into the inpatient setting--and that is after it has already
been approved as safe and effective by the FDA. Dr. Mark Wholey from
Pittsburgh is involved in research on carotid stenting, and he
commented today on the promise of this new treatment option and the
importance of reducing barriers to Medicare patient access for new and
innovative technologies.
In another area of coverage policy, Medicare discourages development
of breakthrough devices like heart assist devices because it does not
cover the routine costs of clinical trials for many innovative
technologies. Dr. Walter Pae, Professor of Surgery at Penn State
University, also came to Washington today to share some details of the
pioneering work he is doing at Hershey Medical Center and to reinforce
the importance of patient access to these promising clinical trials.
These reforms are reasonable and bipartisan. Most importantly, they
are critical to patients in need of new and breakthrough technologies.
I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my colleagues on the
Finance Committee in moving these important reforms in Committee and
the Senate this year.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Kennedy, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 825. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect pension
benefits of employees in defined benefit plans and to direct the
Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the age discrimination
requirements of the Internal Revenue Code 1986; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the early 1990s, a large number of U.S.
companies began a process of switching their defined benefit pension
plans to cash balance plans. Many of the employees whose pension plans
were to be altered drastically weren't told and didn't notice that they
were essentially going to be working for years without earning any more
benefits. Their not knowing was viewed as a key benefit by management.
And the retirees were furious.
As Keith Williams with Watson Wyatt Worldwide and Amy Viener with
William Mercer, two firms that put together these plans in 1998 said at
an Actuaries conference:
Mr. Williams: I've been involved in cash balance plans five
or six years down the road and what I have found is that
while employees understand it, it is not until they are
actually ready to retire that they understand how little they
are actually getting.
Ms. Viener: Right, but they're happy while they're
employed.
One of the most abusive practices in cash balance conversions is
known as ``wear away.'' Older workers see nothing added to their
pensions as the value of the pensions is frozen, often for many years,
until it reaches the lower value of the new pension plan. At the same
time younger workers are getting their pensions increased. In my view,
this is clearly age discrimination and bad pension policy. In 1999, I
introduced a bill to make it illegal for corporations wear away the
benefits of older workers during conversions to cash balance plans. I
offered my bill as an amendment. Forty-eight Senators, including 3
Republicans, voted to waive the budget point of order so we could
consider this amendment. We did not have enough votes then, but I
believe the tide is turning.
After that vote, more and more stories came out about how many
workers were losing their pensions. In September of 1999, the Secretary
of the Treasury put a moratorium on conversions from defined benefit
plans to cash balance plans. That moratorium has been in effect now for
over three years. In April of 2000, I offered a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution to stop this practice, and it passed the Senate unanimously.
But last December, the Treasury decided to end that moratorium. The
Department proposed a regulation that will allow hundreds of companies,
many employing thousands of workers each to go forward with conversions
that will allow for the wear-away of the current benefits of people
across the country. This plan is breathtaking in its audacity. In a
time when people have lost their life savings to market downturns and
corporate duplicity, they are looking at changing the rules so that
employers can once again bolster their bottom line by shifting funds
from the pensions they promised their workers. I will not stand by and
let it happen.
There are over 800 age discrimination complaints currently pending
before the EEOC based on cash balance conversions. How many more will
there be if we again start allowing companies to make these abusive
conversions?
I want to make it very clear: I am not opposed to all cash balance
plans. Some cash balance plans can be very good. What I oppose is the
unilateral decision of a company being able to change their plans and
stop contributing to older employees' pensions while benefits are given
to newer employees.
That is what this issue is all about. It is fairness. It is equity. I
know discussion of pension law can become very convoluted. But in
essence, what some of these companies have been doing to these workers
is nothing less than sheer thievery. They are able to save millions, in
some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, by converting their plans,
robbing workers who have been loyal and hard working, robbing them of
their rightful claims on future benefits, It is not right. It is not
fair.
There is one thing that has distinguished the American workplace from
others around the world. We have valued loyalty. At least we used to.
That is one of the reasons pension plans exist--the longer you work
somewhere, the more you earn in your pension program. Obviously, the
longer you work someplace, the better you do your job, the more you
learn about it, the more productive you are. We should value that
loyalty.
If companies are able to wear away the benefits of the longest
serving workers, what kind of a signal does that send to the workers?
It tells workers they are fools if they are loyal because if you put in
20 to 25 years, the boss can just change the rules of the game, and
break their promise. It tells younger workers that it would be crazy to
work for a company for a long time, that it's best to hedge your bets
and move on as soon as it is convenient.
This destroys the kind of work ethic we have come to value and that
we know built this country. But some of these cash balance conversions
counter all of that. Her is an analogy. Imagine I hire someone for five
years with a promise of a $50,000 bonus at the end of five years of
service. At the end of three years, however, I renege on the $50,000
bonus. But the employee has three years invested. Had they known that
the deal was going to be off, perhaps they would not have gone to work
for me. They could have gone to work someplace else for a total higher
compensation package. Is that the way we want to treat workers in this
country, where the employer has all the cards and employees have none,
and employers can make whatever deal they want, but can change the
rules at any time?
That is why I am introducing this legislation. It is simple. It says
that you have to give older, longer serving employees a choice, at
retirement, when their pension plan is converted to a cash balance plan
to get the benefits earned in the old plan instead. It also says that
employers must start counting the new cash balance benefits where the
old defined benefit plan left off, instead of starting the cash balance
[[Page S4974]]
plan at a lower level than an employee had already earned.
In the March 3, 2002 issue of Fortune magazine, Janice Revell said of
the possible impending flood of cash balances conversions: ``Brace
yourself for a very un-fairy-tale ending to this tory. Millions of
American workers are sure to see a large slice of their retirement
income go up in smoke. It may not happen right away, but the groundwork
is being laid right now.''
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring this
measure, so that we can stop the flood before it starts.
____________________