[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 59 (Friday, April 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5345-S5386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Edwards, Mr. DeWine,
Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Collins Mr. Cochran, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dodd, and
Mr. Schumer):
S. 888. A bill to reauthorize the Museum and Library Services Act,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation
reauthorizing the Museum and Library Services Act. I am joined in this
effort by Senator Reed, Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi,
and several other colleagues of mine. Libraries and museums serve as
important cultural institutions in communities throughout our Nation,
and this legislation will provide them with continued Federal support
through innovative grant programs administered by the Institute of
Museum and Library Services.
Specifically, this bill authorizes $250 million for libraries and
$41.5 million for museums in 2004, and such sums as necessary in 2005
through 2009. In addition, it authorizes a doubling of the minimum
state allotment under the Grants to State Library Agencies Program, up
to $680,000. That provision, coupled with the expected increase in
appropriations for 2004, will greatly benefit New Hampshire's
libraries.
The bill contains a number of other important provisions. Recognizing
the important of school libraries, it requires that the Institute's
library activities be coordinated with the school library provisions of
the No Child Left Behind Act. My bill also prohibits projects
determined to be obscene from receiving Federal funds, requires the
Institute to conduct analyses of the need for museum and library
services and the effectiveness of funded projects in meeting those
needs, consolidates the library and museum advisory boards into one
entity, and prohibits funds appropriate under the Act's authority from
being used for library or museum construction.
furthermore, this bill increases the indemnity limits in the Arts and
Artifacts Indemnity Act, thereby facilitating the international
exchange and display of works of art, books, rare documents and other
published materials, artifacts, and films and other audiovisual media.
This will ensure that people throughout the world are exposed to
American culture and that our own citizens will have richer educational
opportunities available as well.
I want to thank Senator Reed for his leadership on this issue, as
well as Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi, particularly.
Together we have crafted a bipartisan bill that will serve our museums
and libraries well in the coming years. I expect to move this bill
through the HELP Committee soon, and look forward to its speedy
passage.
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. 888
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 ``Museum and Library Services
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. General definitions.
Sec. 102. Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Sec. 103. Director of the Institute.
Sec. 104. National Museum and Library Services Board.
Sec. 105. Awards; analysis of impact of services.
TITLE II--LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY
Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 204. Reservations and allotments.
Sec. 205. State plans.
Sec. 206. Grants to States.
Sec. 207. National leadership grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements.
TITLE III--MUSEUM SERVICES
Sec. 301. Purpose.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Museum services activities.
Sec. 304. Repeals.
Sec. 305. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 306. Short title.
[[Page S5346]]
TITLE IV--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ACT
Sec. 401. Amendment to contributions.
Sec. 402. Amendment to membership.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Amendments to Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act.
Sec. 502. National children's museum.
Sec. 503. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 504. Technical corrections.
Sec. 505. Repeals.
Sec. 506. Effective date.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.
Section 202 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9101) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Determined to be obscene.--The term `determined to be
obscene' means determined, in a final judgment of a court of
record and of competent jurisdiction in the United States, to
be obscene.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5);
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Final judgment.--The term `final judgment' means a
judgment that is--
``(A) not reviewed by any other court that has authority to
review such judgment; or
``(B) not reviewable by any other court.
``(4) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska native village, regional corporation, or
village corporation (as defined in, or established pursuant
to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.)), which is recognized by the Secretary of the
Interior as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Museum and library services board.--The term `Museum
and Library Services Board' means the National Museum and
Library Services Board established under section 207.
``(7) Obscene.--The term `obscene' means, with respect to a
project, that--
``(A) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that such project, when taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
``(B) such project depicts or describes sexual conduct in a
patently offensive way; and
``(C) such project, when taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.''.
SEC. 102. INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES.
Section 203 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9102) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Museum and Library Services Board.--There shall be a
National Museum and Library Services Board within the
Institute, as provided under section 207.''.
SEC. 103. DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE.
Section 204 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9103) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
``Where appropriate, the Director shall ensure that
activities under subtitle B are coordinated with activities
under section 1251 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6383).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Regulatory Authority.--The Director may promulgate
such rules and regulations as are necessary and appropriate
to implement the provisions of this title.
``(g) Application Procedures.--
``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive
financial assistance under this title, a person or agency
shall submit an application in accordance with procedures
established by the Director by regulation.
``(2) Review and evaluation.--The Director shall establish
procedures for reviewing and evaluating applications
submitted under this title. Actions of the Institute and the
Director in the establishment, modification, and revocation
of such procedures under this Act are vested in the
discretion of the Institute and the Director. In establishing
such procedures, the Director shall ensure that the criteria
by which applications are evaluated are consistent with the
purposes of this title, taking into consideration general
standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and
values of the American public.
``(3) Treatment of projects determined to be obscene.--
``(A) In general.--The procedures described in paragraph
(2) shall include provisions that clearly specify that
obscenity is without serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific merit, and is not protected speech.
``(B) Prohibition.--No financial assistance may be provided
under this title with respect to any project that is
determined to be obscene.
``(C) Treatment of application disapproval.--The
disapproval of an application by the Director shall not be
construed to mean, and shall not be considered as evidence
that, the project for which the applicant requested financial
assistance is or is not obscene.''.
SEC. 104. NATIONAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES BOARD.
The Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 207 as section 208; and
(2) by inserting after section 206 the following:
``SEC. 207. NATIONAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES BOARD.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Institute a board to be known as the `National Museum and
Library Services Board'.
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) Number and appointment.--The Museum and Library
Services Board shall be composed of the following:
``(A) The Director.
``(B) The Deputy Director for the Office of Library
Services.
``(C) The Deputy Director for the Office of Museum
Services.
``(D) The Chairman of the National Commission on Libraries
and Information Science.
``(E) 10 members appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals
who are citizens of the United States and who are specially
qualified by virtue of their education, training, or
experience in the area of library services, or their
commitment to libraries.
``(F) 10 members appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals
who are citizens of the United States and who are specially
qualified by virtue of their education, training, or
experience in the area of museum services, or their
commitment to museums.
``(2) Special qualifications.--
``(A) Library members.--Of the members of the Museum and
Library Services Board appointed under paragraph (1)(E)--
``(i) 5 shall be professional librarians or information
specialists, of whom--
``(I) not less than 1 shall be knowledgeable about
electronic information and technical aspects of library and
information services and sciences; and
``(II) not less than 1 other shall be knowledgeable about
the library and information service needs of underserved
communities; and
``(ii) the remainder shall have special competence in, or
knowledge of, the needs for library and information services
in the United States.
``(B) Museum members.--Of the members of the Museum and
Library Services Board appointed under paragraph (1)(F)--
``(i) 5 shall be museum professionals who are or have been
affiliated with--
``(I) resources that, collectively, are broadly
representative of the curatorial, conservation, educational,
and cultural resources of the United States; or
``(II) museums that, collectively, are broadly
representative of various types of museums, including museums
relating to science, history, technology, art, zoos,
botanical gardens, and museums designed for children; and
``(ii) the remainder shall be individuals recognized for
their broad knowledge, expertise, or experience in museums or
commitment to museums.
``(3) Geographic and other representation.--Members of the
Museum and Library Services Board shall be appointed to
reflect persons from various geographic regions of the United
States. The Museum and Library Services Board may not
include, at any time, more than 3 appointive members from a
single State. In making such appointments, the President
shall give due regard to equitable representation of women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities who are involved
with museums and libraries.
``(4) Voting.--The Director, the Deputy Director of the
Office of Library Services, the Deputy Director of the Office
of Museum Services, and the Chairman of the National
Commission on Library and Information Science shall be
nonvoting members of the Museum and Library Services Board.
``(c) Terms.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, each member of the Museum and Library Services
Board appointed under subparagraph (E) or (F) of subsection
(b)(1) shall serve for a term of 5 years.
``(2) Initial board appointments.--
``(A) Treatment of members serving on effective date.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b), each individual who is a
member of the National Museum Services Board on the date of
enactment of the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003,
may, at the individual's election, complete the balance of
the individual's term as a member of the Museum and Library
Services Board.
``(B) First appointments.--Notwithstanding subsection (b),
any appointive vacancy in the initial membership of the
Museum and Library Services Board existing after the
application of subparagraph (A), and any vacancy in such
membership subsequently created by reason of the expiration
of the term of an individual described in subparagraph (A),
shall be filled by the appointment of a member described in
subsection (b)(1)(E). When the Museum and Library Services
Board consists of an equal number of individuals who are
specially qualified in the area of library services and
individuals who are specially qualified in the area of museum
services, this subparagraph shall cease to be effective and
the board shall be appointed in accordance with subsection
(b).
[[Page S5347]]
``(C) Authority to adjust terms.--The terms of the first
members appointed to the Museum and Library Service Board
shall be adjusted by the President as necessary to ensure
that the terms of not more than 4 members expire in the same
year. Such adjustments shall be carried out through
designation of the adjusted term at the time of appointment.
``(3) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
shall serve for the remainder of the term for which the
predecessor of the member was appointed.
``(4) Reappointment.--No appointive member of the Museum
and Library Services Board who has been a member for more
than 7 consecutive years shall be eligible for reappointment.
``(5) Service until successor takes office.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, an
appointive member of the Museum and Library Services Board
shall serve after the expiration of the term of the member
until the successor to the member takes office.
``(d) Duties and Powers.--
``(1) In general.--The Museum and Library Services Board
shall advise the Director on general policies with respect to
the duties, powers, and authority of the Institute relating
to museum and library services, including financial
assistance awarded under this title.
``(2) National awards.--The Museum and Library Services
Board shall advise the Director in making awards under
section 209.
``(e) Chairperson.--The Director shall serve as Chairperson
of the Museum and Library Services Board.
``(f) Meetings.--
``(1) In general.--The Museum and Library Services Board
shall meet not less than 2 times each year and at the call of
the Director.
``(2) Vote.--All decisions by the Museum and Library
Services Board with respect to the exercise of its duties and
powers shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the
Board who are present and authorized to vote.
``(g) Quorum.--A majority of the voting members of the
Museum and Library Services Board shall constitute a quorum
for the conduct of business at official meetings, but a
lesser number of members may hold hearings.
``(h) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--
``(1) Compensation.--Each member of the Museum and Library
Services Board who is not an officer or employee of the
Federal Government may be compensated at a rate to be fixed
by the President, but not to exceed the daily equivalent of
the maximum annual rate of pay authorized for a position
above grade GS-15 of the General Schedule under section 5108
of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including
travel time) during which such member is engaged in the
performance of the duties of the Museum and Library Services
Board. Members of the Museum and Libraries Services Board who
are full-time officers or employees of the Federal Government
may not receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by
reason of their service on the Museum and Library Services
Board.
``(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Museum and
Library Services Board shall receive travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
applicable provisions under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(i) Coordination.--The Director, with the advice of the
Museum and Library Services Board, shall take steps to ensure
that the policies and activities of the Institute are
coordinated with other activities of the Federal
Government.''.
SEC. 105. AWARDS; ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF SERVICES.
The Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 208 (as
redesignated by section 104 of this Act) the following:
``SEC. 209. AWARDS.
``The Director, with the advice of the Museum and Library
Services Board, may annually award National Awards for
Library Service and National Awards for Museum Service to
outstanding libraries and outstanding museums, respectively,
that have made significant contributions in service to their
communities.
``SEC. 210. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY
SERVICES.
``From amounts described in sections 214(c) and 275(b), the
Director shall carry out and publish analyses of the impact
of museum and library services. Such analyses--
``(1) shall be conducted in ongoing consultation with--
``(A) State library administrative agencies;
``(B) State, regional, and national library and museum
organizations; and
``(C) other relevant agencies and organizations;
``(2) shall identify national needs for, and trends of,
museum and library services provided with funds made
available under subtitles B and C;
``(3) shall report on the impact and effectiveness of
programs conducted with funds made available by the Institute
in addressing such needs; and
``(4) shall identify, and disseminate information on, the
best practices of such programs to the agencies and entities
described in paragraph (1).
``SEC. 210A. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
``No funds appropriated to carry out the Museum and Library
Services Act, the Library Services and Technology Act, or the
Museum Services Act may be used for construction expenses.''.
TITLE II--LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 201. PURPOSE.
Section 212 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9121) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) through
(5) and inserting the following:
``(2) to promote improvement in library services in all
types of libraries in order to better serve the people of the
United States;
``(3) to facilitate access to resources in all types of
libraries for the purpose of cultivating an educated and
informed citizenry; and
``(4) to encourage resource sharing among all types of
libraries for the purpose of achieving economical and
efficient delivery of library services to the public.''.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
Section 213 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9122) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)
as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 214 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9123) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subtitle $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004
and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005
through 2009.''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``3 percent'' and
inserting ``3.5 percent''.
SEC. 204. RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS.
Section 221(b)(3) of the Library Services and Technology
Act (20 U.S.C. 9131(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Minimum allotments.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
minimum allotment for each State shall be $340,000, except
that the minimum allotment shall be $40,000 in the case of
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and
the Republic of Palau.
``(B) Ratable reductions.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), if the sum appropriated under the authority of section
214 and not reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year
is insufficient to fully satisfy the requirement of
subparagraph (A), each of the minimum allotments under such
subparagraph shall be reduced ratably.
``(C) Exception.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the
sum appropriated under the authority of section 214 and not
reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year exceeds the
aggregate of the allotments for all States under this
subsection for fiscal year 2003--
``(I) the minimum allotment for each State otherwise
receiving a minimum allotment of $340,000 under subparagraph
(A) shall be increased to $680,000; and
``(II) the minimum allotment for each State otherwise
receiving a minimum allotment of $40,000 under subparagraph
(A) shall be increased to $60,000.
``(ii) Insufficient funds to award alternative minimum.--If
the sum appropriated under the authority of section 214 and
not reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year exceeds
the aggregate of the allotments for all States under this
subsection for fiscal year 2003 yet is insufficient to fully
satisfy the requirement of clause (i), such excess amount
shall first be allotted among the States described in clause
(i)(I) so as to increase equally the minimum allotment for
each such State above $340,000. After the requirement of
clause (i)(I) is fully satisfied for any fiscal year, any
remainder of such excess amount shall be allotted among the
States described in clause (i)(II) so as to increase equally
the minimum allotment for each such State above $40,000.
``(D) Special rule.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection and using funds allotted for the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and
the Republic of Palau under this subsection, the Director
shall award grants to the United States Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated
States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau to carry out
activities described in this subtitle in accordance with the
provisions of this subtitle that the Director determines are
not inconsistent with this subparagraph.
``(ii) Award basis.--The Director shall award grants
pursuant to clause (i) on a competitive basis and after
taking into consideration available recommendations from the
Pacific Region Educational Laboratory in Honolulu, Hawaii.
``(iii) Administrative costs.--The Director may provide not
more than 5 percent of the funds made available for grants
under this subparagraph to pay the administrative costs of
the Pacific Region Educational Laboratory regarding
activities assisted under this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 205. STATE PLANS.
Section 224 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9134) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``not later than
April 1, 1997.'' and inserting ``once every 5 years, as
determined by the Director.''; and
[[Page S5348]]
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``this Act'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``this subtitle'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``section 213(2)(A) or (B)'' and inserting
``section 213(1)(A) or (B)''; and
(ii) by striking ``1934,'' and all that follows through
``Act, may'' and inserting ``1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6))
may''; and
(C) in paragraph (7)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``section:'' and inserting ``subsection:''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``given'' and
inserting ``applicable to''.
SEC. 206. GRANTS TO STATES.
Section 231 of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9141) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following:
``(1) expanding services for learning and access to
information and educational resources in a variety of
formats, in all types of libraries, for individuals of all
ages;
``(2) developing library services that provide all users
access to information through local, State, regional,
national, and international electronic networks;
``(3) providing electronic and other linkages among and
between all types of libraries;
``(4) developing public and private partnerships with other
agencies and community-based organizations;
``(5) targeting library services to individuals of diverse
geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, to
individuals with disabilities, and to individuals with
limited functional literacy or information skills; and
``(6) targeting library and information services to persons
having difficulty using a library and to underserved urban
and rural communities, including children (from birth through
age 17) from families with incomes below the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a
family of the size involved.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``between the two
purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of such
subsection,'' and inserting ``among such purposes,''.
SEC. 207. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP GRANTS, CONTRACTS, OR
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
Section 262(a)(1) of the Library Services and Technology
Act (20 U.S.C. 9162(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``education
and training'' and inserting ``education, recruitment, and
training''.
TITLE III--MUSEUM SERVICES
SEC. 301. PURPOSE.
Section 271 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9171) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 271. PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this subtitle--
``(1) to encourage and support museums in carrying out
their public service role of connecting the whole of society
to the cultural, artistic, historical, natural, and
scientific understandings that constitute our heritage;
``(2) to encourage and support museums in carrying out
their educational role, as core providers of learning and in
conjunction with schools, families, and communities;
``(3) to encourage leadership, innovation, and applications
of the most current technologies and practices to enhance
museum services;
``(4) to assist, encourage, and support museums in carrying
out their stewardship responsibilities to achieve the highest
standards in conservation and care of the cultural, historic,
natural, and scientific heritage of the United States to
benefit future generations;
``(5) to assist, encourage, and support museums in
achieving the highest standards of management and service to
the public, and to ease the financial burden borne by museums
as a result of their increasing use by the public; and
``(6) to support resource sharing and partnerships among
museums, libraries, schools, and other community
organizations.''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
Section 272(1) of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9172(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Such term includes aquariums, arboretums,
botanical gardens, art museums, children's museums, general
museums, historic houses and sites, history museums, nature
centers, natural history and anthropology museums,
planetariums, science and technology centers, specialized
museums, and zoological parks.''.
SEC. 303. MUSEUM SERVICES ACTIVITIES.
Section 273 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9173) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 273. MUSEUM SERVICES ACTIVITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Director, after considering
available policy advice of the Museum and Library Services
Board, may enter into arrangements, including grants,
contracts, cooperative agreements, and other forms of
assistance, with museums and other entities as the Director
considers appropriate, to pay the Federal share of the cost
of--
``(1) supporting museums in providing learning and access
to collections, information, and educational resources in a
variety of formats (including exhibitions, programs,
publications, and websites) for individuals of all ages;
``(2) supporting museums in building learning partnerships
with the Nation's schools and developing museum resources and
programs in support of State and local school curricula;
``(3) supporting museums in assessing, conserving,
researching, maintaining, and exhibiting their collections,
and in providing educational programs to the public through
the use of their collections;
``(4) stimulating greater collaboration among museums,
libraries, schools, and other community organizations in
order to share resources and strengthen communities;
``(5) encouraging the use of new technologies and broadcast
media to enhance access to museum collections, programs, and
services;
``(6) supporting museums in providing services to people of
diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds
and to individuals with disabilities;
``(7) supporting museums in developing and carrying out
specialized programs for specific segments of the public,
such as programs for urban neighborhoods, rural areas, Indian
reservations, and State institutions;
``(8) supporting professional development and technical
assistance programs to enhance museum operations at all
levels, in order to ensure the highest standards in all
aspects of museum operations;
``(9) supporting museums in research, program evaluation,
and the collection and dissemination of information to museum
professionals and the public; and
``(10) encouraging, supporting, and disseminating model
programs of museum and library collaboration.
``(b) Federal Share.--
``(1) 50 percent.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Federal share described in subsection (a) shall be not more
than 50 percent.
``(2) Greater than 50 percent.--The Director may use not
more than 20 percent of the funds made available under this
subtitle for a fiscal year to enter into arrangements under
subsection (a) for which the Federal share may be greater
than 50 percent.
``(3) Operational expenses.--No funds for operational
expenses may be provided under this section to any entity
that is not a museum.
``(c) Review and Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall establish procedures
for reviewing and evaluating arrangements described in
subsection (a) entered into under this subtitle.
``(2) Applications for technical assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The Director may use not more than 10
percent of the funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle
for technical assistance awards.
``(B) Individual museums.--Individual museums may receive
not more than 3 technical assistance awards under
subparagraph (A), but subsequent awards for technical
assistance shall be subject to review outside the Institute.
``(d) Services for Native Americans.--From amounts
appropriated under section 275, the Director shall reserve
1.75 percent to award grants to, or enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with, Indian tribes and organizations
that primarily serve and represent Native Hawaiians (as
defined in section 7207 of the Native Hawaiian Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 7517)), to enable such tribes and organizations to
carry out the activities described in subsection (a).''.
SEC. 304. REPEALS.
Sections 274 and 275 of the Museum and Library Services Act
(20 U.S.C. 9174 and 9175) are repealed.
SEC. 305. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 276 of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9176) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$28,700,000 for the
fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the fiscal years 1998 through 2002.'' and inserting
``$41,500,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.''; and
(2) by redesignating such section as section 275 of such
Act.
SEC. 306. SHORT TITLE.
Subtitle C of the Museum and Library Services Act (20
U.S.C. 9171 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 271, 272, and 273 as sections
272, 273, and 274, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after the subtitle heading the following:
``SEC. 271. SHORT TITLE.
``This subtitle may be cited as the `Museum Services
Act'.''.
TITLE IV--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ACT
SEC. 401. AMENDMENT TO CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 4 of the National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science Act (20 U.S.C. 1503) is amended by
striking ``accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts,
bequests, and devises of property,'' and inserting ``solicit,
accept, hold, administer, invest in the name of the United
States, and utilize gifts, bequests, and devises of services
or property,''.
SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO MEMBERSHIP.
Section 6(a) of the National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science Act (20 U.S.C. 1505(a)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``and at least one
other of whom shall be knowledgeable with respect to the
library and information service and science needs of the
elderly'';
[[Page S5349]]
(2) by striking the fourth sentence and inserting the
following: ``A majority of members of the Commission who have
taken office and are serving on the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for conduct of business at official
meetings of the Commission''; and
(3) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``five years, except
that'' and all that follows through the period and inserting
``five years, except that--
``(1) a member of the Commission appointed to fill a
vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which the member's predecessor was appointed, shall be
appointed only for the remainder of such term; and
``(2) any member of the Commission may continue to serve
after an expiration of the member's term of office until such
member's successor is appointed, has taken office, and is
serving on the Commission.''.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. AMENDMENTS TO ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY ACT.
Section 5 of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act (20
U.S.C. 974) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``$5,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$8,000,000,000'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``$500,000,000'' and
inserting ``$600,000,000''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) not less than $400,000,000 but less than
$500,000,000, then coverage under this chapter shall extend
only to loss or damage in excess of the first $400,000 of
loss or damage to items covered; or
``(8) $500,000,000 or more, then coverage under this
chapter shall extend only to loss or damage in excess of the
first $500,000 of loss or damage to items covered.''.
SEC. 502. NATIONAL CHILDREN'S MUSEUM.
(a) Designation.--The Capital Children's Museum located at
800 Third Street, NE, Washington, D.C. (or any successor
location), organized under the laws of the District of
Columbia, is designated as the ``National Children's
Museum''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Capital Children's Museum referred to in subsection (a) shall
be deemed to be a reference to the National Children's
Museum.
SEC. 503. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 170(e)(6)(B)(i)(III) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to the special rule for contributions of
computer technology and equipment for educational purposes)
is amended by striking ``section 213(2)(A) of the Library
Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(2)(A)'' and
inserting ``section 213(1)(A) of the Library Services and
Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(1)(A))''.
SEC. 504. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Title Heading.--The title heading for the Museum and
Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq.) is amended to
read as follows:
``TITLE II--MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES''.
(b) Subtitle A Heading.--The subtitle heading for subtitle
A of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9101 et
seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle A--General Provisions''.
(c) Subtitle B Heading.--The subtitle heading for subtitle
B of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9121 et
seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle B--Library Services and Technology''.
(d) Subtitle C Heading.--The subtitle heading for subtitle
C of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9171 et
seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle C--Museum Services''.
(e) Contributions.--Section 208 of the Museum and Library
Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9106) (as redesignated by section 104
of this Act) is amended by striking ``property of services''
and inserting ``property or services''.
(f) State Plan Contents.--Section 224(b)(5) of the Library
Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9134(b)(5)) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end.
(g) National Leadership Grants, Contracts, or Cooperative
Agreements.--Section 262(b)(1) of the Library Services and
Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9162(b)(1)) is amended by striking
``cooperative agreements, with,'' and inserting ``cooperative
agreements with,''.
SEC. 505. REPEALS.
(a) National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science Act.--Section 5 of the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science Act (20 U.S.C. 1504) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
(b) Museum and Library Services Act of 1996.--Sections 704
through 707 of the Museum and Library Services Act of 1996
(20 U.S.C. 9102 note, 9103 note, and 9105 note) are repealed.
SEC. 506. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act, except that the amendments
made by sections 203, 204, and 305 of this Act shall take
effect on October 1, 2003.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I rise to join Senators Gregg,
Kennedy, Frist, and others in introducing the Museum and Library
Services Act.
This legislation, which extends the authorization of museum and
library services through fiscal year 2009 and makes several important
improvements to current law, is a compromise based on S. 238,
bipartisan legislation I introduced with Senators Kennedy, Cochran,
Collins, Snowe, and others in January.
Like S. 238, this bill ensures that library activities are
coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now
part of the No child Left Behind Act of 2001. It also doubles the
minimum State allotment under the Library Program, which will enable
smaller States such as Rhode Island to benefit and implement the
valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put
in place. It includes an increase in the indemnity limits under the
Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to ensure continued support for
American museums as they facilitate international cultural exchanges
through touring exhibitions here in the U.S. and loans of American art
around the world.
The bill also updates the uses of funds for library and museum
programs and increases the authorization under the Library services and
Technology Act, LSTA, from $150 million to $250 million and the Museum
Services Act from $28.7 million to $41.5 million. We should meet these
funding levels in the appropriations process due to the strong
bipartisan nature of the bill we are introducing today. I personally
believe that our libraries and museums should be more robustly funded,
particularly as these institutions play increasingly important roles in
our lives. Indeed, the bipartisan bill that Senator Kennedy and I put
forward earlier this year included even higher funding levels. But, in
an effort to move this bill forward, I have agreed to support this
compromise.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work
for its swift passage.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 889. A bill to accord honorary citizenship to the alien victims of
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States and
to provide for the granting of citizenship to the alien spouses and
children of certain victims of such attacks; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorist
Victim Citizenship Relief Act, a bill that would provide citizenship
relief to many families adversely affected by the attacks of September
11, 2001.
In the time since that tragic day, I have met with several of the
families of the victims of the terrorist attacks to discuss a variety
of measures in the wake of that national calamity. They have been
dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. In my
view, Congress must do more to help the families of the victims of
September 11, and the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act should be
a part of that effort.
When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in
the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of
hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on
American soil on a major American institution and directed at the
United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims.
Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder
with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and
their families should be honored.
My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants
and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their
spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill
would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a
background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the
spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to
offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because
of this attack on the United States.
About 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that
fateful September morning. Nationals from
[[Page S5350]]
some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non-
immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents.
America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good
reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September
11 attacks, 86 countries including England, Germany, Mexico, Colombia,
Japan, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and
Pakistan suffered tragic losses. And there were many more.
In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant
families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center
disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and
daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and
their livelihoods jeopardized.
Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic
nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the
families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They
are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in
the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs
designed to assist the surviving families of victims.
Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous
burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of
one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her
immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker
status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were
born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in
American schools.
She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States.
However, under the antiterrorism legislation that was passed in the
last Congress, this mother of two is technically deportable right now.
My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to
avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they
have ever truly known, while they are still grappling with the loss of
their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do.
This woman's story is but one of many. My office has received
numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their
immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one.
Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork
to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor
die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack.
This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to
become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache.
When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not
distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between
undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking
the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and
non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant.
The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but
they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are
a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed.
Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can
acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by
allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of
American citizenship.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and 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. 889
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 ``Terrorist Victim Citizenship
Relief Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On September 11, 2001, the United States suffered a
series of attacks which led to the deaths of thousands of
people.
(2) Hundreds of foreign nationals perished in the attacks
on the American institutions on American soil.
(3) At that time, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service was processing applications for adjustment in
immigration status for immigrants who perished in the
attacks.
(4) The immigrant or nonimmigrant status of many immigrant
families depends on the sponsorship of those who perished.
(5) The former Immigration and Naturalization Service
publicly stated that it would not take action against foreign
nationals whose immigration status is in jeopardy as a direct
result of the attack.
(6) The Commissioner of the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service James Ziglar stated that ``the
Immigration and Naturalization Service will exercise its
discretion toward families of victims during this time of
mourning and readjustment''.
(7) Only Congress has the authority to change immigration
law to address unanticipated omissions in existing law to
account for the unique circumstances surrounding the events
of September 11, 2001.
SEC. 3. DECEASED ALIEN VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS DEEMED TO
BE UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and except as
provided in section 5, each alien who died as a result of a
September 11, 2001, terrorist attack against the United
States, shall, as of that date, be considered to be an
honorary citizen of the United States if the alien held
lawful status under the immigration laws of the United States
as of that date.
SEC. 4. CITIZENSHIP ACCORDED TO ALIEN SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF
CERTAIN VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS.
Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and except as
provided in section 5, an alien spouse or child of an
individual who was lawfully present in the United States and
who died as a result of a September 11, 2001, terrorist
attack against the United States shall be entitled to
naturalization as a citizen of the United States upon being
administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance in an
appropriate ceremony pursuant to section 337 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448), without
regard to the current status of the alien spouse or child
under the immigration laws of the United States, if the
spouse or child applies to the Secretary of Homeland Security
for naturalization not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act. The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall record the date of naturalization of any person granted
naturalization under this section as being September 10,
2001.
SEC. 5. EXCEPTIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien
may not be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, or
afforded honorary citizenship, under this Act if the alien
is--
(1) inadmissible under paragraph (2) or (3) of section
212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or deportable
under paragraph (2) or (4) of section 237(a) of that Act,
including any terrorist perpetrator of a September 11, 2001,
terrorist attack against the United States; or
(2) a member of the family of a person described in
paragraph (1).
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Collins, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 890. A bill to amend the individuals with Disabilities Education
Act to provide grants to State educational agencies to establish high
cost funds from which local educational agencies are paid a percentage
of the costs of providing a free appropriate public education to high
need children and other high costs associated with educating children
with disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the
Supporting Success for High Need Students Act, and I thank Senator
Collins and Senator Kennedy for joining me in offering this
legislation. In recent years, I have come to this floor many times to
talk about special education, often in the context of the need to fully
fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is often
known.
Mandatory full funding of IDEA is an important issue that should have
been settled many years ago. The Federal Government should be meeting
the commitment it made over 25 years ago to fund 40 percent of the
excess cost of special education. Two years ago, this body finally
recognized that reality and passed an amendment to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act that would have fulfilled that promise for
students, schools, districts and States struggling to make up where we
fall short. I was disappointed that the President made it clear that he
did not support funding this long-standing mandate, and that the House
voted not to accept the Senate amendment. At that time I voiced my
commitment to continuing to fight to provide the full funding that is
long overdue, and I will continue that fight. Unfortunately though,
there is a small minority of
[[Page S5351]]
students whose educational needs will not be adequately supported even
when IDEA is fully funded.
High-need students, whose disabilities may make education an
extremely expensive endeavor, must nonetheless have the services and
supports they need to receive a full, appropriate public education.
Children who are severely autistic or have severe developmental
disabilities, for example, may need special facilities, equipment,
educational tools, medical services, professional individualized
attention and other resources in order to get the education they need
to succeed. These needs often far exceed those of most students with
disabilities, and so do their costs. The National Center for Education
Statistics estimates that the average per pupil expenditure to educate
a child in the United States was $7,156 in the 2000-01 academic year.
The cost of educating a high-needs student can far exceed that. Costs
occasionally exceed $150,000 per year--more than 20 times the average--
to provide students with disabilities the education they need. However,
no price is too high to fulfill the civil rights of America's children.
With so many Americans out of work, and State and local budgets
squeezed to the brink of disaster, these costs can be a prohibitive
burden for school districts to shoulder. Small, rural school districts
or districts near specialized medical facilities--which are often in
our major cities, but can be in unexpected locations such as near a
major military base--are most heavily impacted by these costs. But in
the right combination of circumstances, such as a family with
quadruplets who are all severely developmentally delayed, any district
can feel the pinch of the costs incurred from educating these high-need
children.
I know that educators, administrators and elected officials at every
level want to do the right thing. They are trying to give students with
disabilities the best education they can. But too often, they simply
lack the resources to do so, or they find themselves faced with a no-
win situation--choosing between implementing an after school program
for the entire district or funding one high-need student's
Individualized Education Plan. The losers in this equation are the
students--with or without disabilities--their parents, and our society
as a whole. The resulting tensions do a grave disservice to our
communities.
The bill I am introducing today--the Supporting Success for High Need
Students Act of 2003--is a carefully crafted bill that would address
this problem. This legislation adds funding to IDEA targeted
specifically for high-need students. It authorizes $750 million in
fiscal year 2004 for grants to be administered by the States. This
funding would be allocated to the States using the same formula that
apportions funding for IDEA part B. If a high-need student's education
costs more than four times the average per pupil expenditure, the
school district would be able to apply for a grant to offset those
costs. I believe that we should preserve incentives for school
districts to manage those costs, so my bill would allow districts to
recover three-quarters of the costs above that 400 percent threshold to
educate high-needs students. Districts could not be reimbursed with
these funds for any legal costs incurred through due process
proceedings, or costs that should be reimbursed by Medicaid. The funds
would only cover education and related services included in an
appropriately formulated Individualized Education Plan.
To illustrate, let's assume that four times the average per pupil
expenditure is $25,000. If a school district were serving a student
whose education cost $45,000 a year, that district could recoup about
$15,000 from the State grant. If a district were serving a student
whose education cost $225,000, that district could recoup about
$150,000. This bill would not make up all the additional costs of
educating high-need students, but it would give struggling districts a
much-needed lifeline by making them a lot more manageable.
It has often been noted that the moral test of a society is how it
cares for its weakest members. It is the government's appropriate role
and duty to protect the basic human dignity of all its citizens to
ensure that even the neediest among us have a fair opportunity to
realize their dreams and potential. That is why we passed the special
education law over 25 years ago, and that is why we should pass the
Supporting Success for High Need Students Act his year.
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. 890
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 ``Supporting Success for High
Need Students Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. HIGH COST FUND FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 620. HIGH COST FUND FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Average per-pupil expenditure.--The term `average
per-pupil expenditure' has the meaning given the term in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
``(2) High need child.--The term `high need child' means a
child with a disability for whom a free appropriate public
education in a fiscal year costs more than 4 times the
average per-pupil expenditure for such fiscal year.
``(b) Authorization of Grant Program and Allotment.--
``(1) Reservation.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (h), the Secretary shall reserve--
``(A) not more than 1 percent to assist the outlying areas
in providing a free appropriate public education to children
with disabilities in such areas for whom a free appropriate
public education costs more than 4 times the national average
per-pupil expenditure or 4 times the average per-pupil
expenditure in the outlying area; and
``(B) 1.226 percent to assist the Secretary of the Interior
in providing a free appropriate public education to children
with disabilities on reservations who are enrolled in schools
for Indian children operated or funded by the Secretary of
the Interior for whom a free appropriate public education
costs more than 4 times the national average per-pupil
expenditure or 4 times the average per-pupil expenditure in
such schools.
``(2) Grant Program.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (h), and not reserved under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall award grants to State educational agencies,
from allotments under paragraph (3), to enable the State
educational agencies to establish high cost funds, as
described in subsection (c), from which local educational
agencies shall receive disbursements to pay a percentage of
the costs of providing a free appropriate public education to
high need children and other high costs, as described in
subsection (c)(3), associated with educating children with
disabilities.
``(3) Allotment.--From funds appropriated under subsection
(h) for a fiscal year, and not reserved under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall allot to each State an amount that bears
the same ratio to such funds as the amount the State received
under section 611 for the fiscal year bears to the total
amount received by all States under that section for the
fiscal year.
``(c) High Cost Fund.--
``(1) In general.--Each State educational agency that
receives a grant under subsection (b) shall--
``(A) use the grant funds to establish a high cost fund;
and
``(B) make disbursements from the high cost fund to local
educational agencies in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Required disbursements from the fund.--
``(A) In general.--Each State educational agency that
receives a grant under subsection (b) shall make
disbursements from the fund established under paragraph (1)
to local educational agencies to pay the percentage described
in subparagraph (C) of the costs of providing a free
appropriate public education to high need children.
``(B) Application.--
``(i) In general.--A local educational agency that desires
a disbursement under this paragraph shall submit an
application to the State educational agency at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the State
educational agency may require.
``(ii) Contents.--An application submitted pursuant to
clause (i) shall contain the following:
``(I) A figure that reflects the costs of providing a free
appropriate public education to each high need child served
by the local educational agency in a fiscal year for whom
such agency desires a disbursement under this section.
``(II) The IEP for each high need child served by the local
educational agency for whom such agency desires a
disbursement under this section.
``(III) Assurances that grant funds provided under this
section shall not be used to pay costs that otherwise would
be reimbursable as medical assistance for a child with a
disability under the State medicaid program under title XIX
of the Social Security Act.
``(C) Disbursements.--
[[Page S5352]]
``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (D), a State
educational agency shall make a disbursement to a local
educational agency that submits an application under
subparagraph (B) in an amount that is equal to 75 percent of
the costs that are in excess of 4 times the average per-pupil
expenditure in either the Nation or the State where the child
resides (calculated from whichever average per-pupil
expenditure is lower) associated with educating each high
need child served by such local educational agency in a
fiscal year for whom such agency desires a disbursement.
``(ii) Appropriate costs.--The costs associated with
educating a high need child under clause (i) are only those
costs associated with providing special education and related
services to such child that are identified in such child's
appropriately developed IEP.
``(D) Disallowance of certain payments.--A State
educational agency may disallow payment of certain costs
included in the figure submitted by a local educational
agency under subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) if such costs are
determined by the State educational agency to be
inappropriate or unnecessary excess costs associated with
providing a free appropriate public education to a high need
child.
``(E) Legal fees.--The costs associated with providing a
free appropriate public education to a high need child shall
not include legal fees, court costs, or other costs
associated with a cause of action brought on behalf of such
child to ensure a free appropriate public education for such
child.
``(3) Permissible disbursements from remaining funds.--A
State educational agency may make disbursements to local
educational agencies from any funds that are remaining in the
high cost fund after making the required disbursements under
paragraph (2) for a fiscal year for the following purposes:
``(A) To pay the costs associated with serving children
with disabilities who moved into the areas served by such
local educational agencies after commencement of the school
year to assist the local educational agencies in providing a
free appropriate public education for such children in such
year.
``(B) To compensate local educational agencies that expend
over a threshold amount determined by the State educational
agency on costs associated with providing a free appropriate
public education to all children with disabilities served by
such agencies.
``(4) Limitation on administrative costs.--A State
educational agency may use not more than 2 percent of the
funds received under this section for the administrative
costs of carrying out such agency's responsibilities under
this section.
``(d) Assurance of a Free Appropriate Public Education.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed--
``(1) to limit or condition the right of a child with a
disability who is assisted under this part to receive a free
appropriate public education pursuant to section 612(a)(1) in
a least restrictive environment pursuant to section
612(a)(5); and
``(2) to authorize a State educational agency or local
educational agency to indicate a limit on what is expected to
be spent on the education of a child with a disability.
``(e) Evaluation and Report.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) evaluate the effectiveness of the high cost funds
established pursuant to this section; and
``(2) submit a report to the appropriate committees of
Congress on such evaluation.
``(f) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under
this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant
other Federal, State, and local funds available for providing
a free appropriate public education for children with
disabilities.
``(g) Medicaid Services Not Affected.--Grant funds provided
under this section shall not be used to pay costs that
otherwise would be reimbursable as medical assistance for a
child with a disability under the State medicaid program
under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$750,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be
necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Ensign, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Corzine, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 893. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in
employment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join concerned
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as concerned
citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs among many
other faiths. We come together in support of a simple proposition.
America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious
freedom. It should be a place where people should not be forced to
choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I
am joining with Senators Kerry, Ensign, Mikulski, Smith, Murray, Hatch,
Lieberman, Brownback, and Corzine in introducing the bipartisan
Workplace Religious Freedom Act.
This legislation provides a much needed, balanced approach to
reconciling the needs of people of faith in the workplace. It
recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled without undue
hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, many with a deep
personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes personal
religious standards which govern personal activity. For example, some
Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't work on Sundays.
Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because their faith
convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be set aside as
holy.
Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head
covering, or a turban. As a Nation whose great strength rests in
diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and
unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're generous
enough, and respecting enough as a Nation, to support others in genuine
expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the religious
minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who are very
small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly diverse
society, many remain among us who still hold to ancient, heartfelt
principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you they
deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in
preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core
principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence
of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom. Religious
freedom is best protected and maintained by respecting the diversity of
religious traditions, especially minority religions. The tragedy of
September 11, 2001 has reminded us that religious pluralism is one the
great strengths of this country and an example to much of the world.
In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers
would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees
whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do whenever possible
here in Congress. For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on
certain holidays so that Members and staff can observe their religious
holy days. While most private employers also extend this simple but
important decency to their workers, some unfortunately do not.
Historically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to
address conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires
employers to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their
employees as long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the
employer. The problem is that our Federal courts have essentially read
these lines out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue
hardship. This is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this
great Nation which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom. Thus,
a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian truck
driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in Nevada
can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday shift if
she wants to continue working for them.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle
that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of
employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and
strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while
ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American employers. It
is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a smaller
business with less resources and personnel would not be asked to
accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would a
large manufacturing concern.
I am proud of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I am proud
that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups
ranging from the Christian Legal Society, the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations, the
[[Page S5353]]
Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the
North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce,
the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee and
many others.
America is a great Nation because we honor not only the freedom of
conscience--but also the freedom to exercise one's religion according
to the dictates of that religious conscience. This liberty, known as
the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of our continued vigilance. It should
be supported from all quarters through religious accommodation in both
the public and private sectors. This fundamental freedom is protected
here in this legislation which re-establishes an appropriate balance
between the demands of work and the principles of faith.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am extremely pleased to join with my
colleague Senator Santorum today to introduce the Workplace Religious
Freedom Act of 2003. Senators Ensign, Mikulski, Smith, Murray, Hatch,
Lieberman, Brownback, and Corzine have all joined us as original
cosponsors of this important legislation.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would protect workers from on-
the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. It
represents a milestone in the protection of the religious liberties of
all workers.
In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require
employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or
observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the
employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has
been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint
on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The
Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore the weight to the
religious accommodation provision that Congress originally intended and
help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to reasonably
accommodate their employees' religious practices.
The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many
religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to
carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from
employers. I have heard accounts from around the country about
employers who will not make reasonable accommodations for employees to
observe the Sabbath and other holy days, or for employees to wear
religiously-required garb, such as a yarmulke, or for employees to wear
clothing that meets religion-based modesty requirements.
The refusal of an employer absent undue hardship to provide
reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a
form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in
1972. And religious discrimination should be treated as seriously as
any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and
equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious
Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all
members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices,
will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination.
Even after September 11, 2001, with a heightened sense of religious
sensitivity among the American people, securing greater protections for
the religious needs of employees is a major issue. In October 2001, the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a Muslim woman who
was pressured by her employer to stop wearing her head scarf. We must
come together now to pass this bipartisan legislation.
It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the
religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers
from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only
if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for
the employer. This common sense definition of undue hardship is used in
the Americans with Disabilities Act and has worked well in that
context.
We have little doubt that this bill is constitutional because it
simply clarifies existing law on discrimination by private employers,
strengthening the required standard for employers. This bill does not
deal with behavior by State or Federal Governments or substantively
expand 14th Amendment rights.
This bill is endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the
Agudath Israel of America, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish
Congress, Americans for Democratic Action, Anti-Defamation League,
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Bible Sabbath Association,
B'nai B'rith International, Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Christian Legal Society, Church of Scientology International, Council
on Religious Freedom, Family Research Council, General Board of Church
and Society The United Methodist Church, General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists, Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, Hadassah--WZOA, Institute
on Religion and Public Policy, The Interfaith Alliance, International
Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, International Commission on
Freedom of Conscience, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,
Islamic Supreme Council of America, Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
Jewish Policy Center, NA'AMAT USA, National Association of
Evangelicals, National Conference for Community and Justice, National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., National Council of
Jewish Women, National Jewish Democratic Council, National Sikh Center,
North American Council for Muslim Women, Presbyterian Church (USA),
Rabbinical Council of America, Republican Jewish Coalition, Sikh
Council on Religion and Education, Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task
Force, Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission, Traditional Values Coalition, Union of American Hebrew
Congregations, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, United Church of
Christ Office for Church in Society, and United Synagogue of
Conservative Judaism.
I want to thank Senator Santorum for joining me to lead this effort.
I look forward to working with him to pass this legislation so that all
American workers can be assured of both equal employment opportunities
and the ability to practice their religion.
______
By Mr. NICKLES (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 895. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include
wireless telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified
technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation
treatment of such equipment; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
clarify the tax rules governing the depreciation of wireless
telecommunications equipment. I am joined by my distinguished colleague
from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
Our current depreciation system, the Modified Accelerated Cost
Recovery System, MACRS, was last reformed in 1986. At that time, the
wireless telecommunications industry was in its infancy. Therefore,
wireless telecommunications equipment, which is primarily computer-
based technology, was not assigned to a specific asset class.
The IRS has provided only limited guidance with respect to the
depreciation of wireless telecommunications equipment. In 1998, the IRS
issued Technical Advice Memorandum, TAM, 98-25-03, which asserted that
the classes of assets used to provide wireless telecommunications
services are comparable to wireline telecommunications assets and,
thus, should be assigned to wireline asset classes. The TAM concluded
that mobile switching centers should be classified in the same asset
class with computer-based telephone central office switching equipment,
5-year property. However, the TAM failed to take a clear position with
regard to the classification of cell site equipment, so there is no
practical guidance for IRS revenue agents or taxpayers to follow.
Over the past decade, the IRS and wireless telecommunications
companies have expended significant resources in audits and settlement
disputes involving the depreciation of wireless telecommunications
equipment. This has resulted in ad hoc, inconsistent, and costly case-
by-case determinations of the appropriate class
[[Page S5354]]
life for this equipment. It has created the current situation in which
similarly situated companies are being treated differently, with some
being required to depreciate their wireless telecommunications
equipment over 5 years, and others over 10 years or longer.
I believe Congress should act to clarify the depreciation rules for
wireless telecommunications equipment to provide certainty to the IRS
and the taxpayer, thereby putting an end to the costly dispute
settlement process; to ensure a level playing field for taxpayers; and
to provide fair tax-treatment of wireless telecommunications equipment.
Given the nature of this equipment and the rapid technological advances
in the wireless industry, I believe the most appropriate classification
for wireless telecommunications equipment is as ``qualified
technological equipment'' with a 5-year depreciable life.
The bill I am introducing with my colleague from Arkansas would make
this important clarification to the tax laws. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to enact my legislation that will provide more
rational tax-treatment of wireless telecommunications equipment. By so
doing, we will take an incremental step toward modernizing the Tax
Code's outdated depreciation rules.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Bayh):
S. 899. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
restore the full market basket percentage increase applied to payments
to hospitals for inpatient hospital services furnished to medicare
beneficiaries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today that will increase Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. While we
corrected in the omnibus appropriations bill the reimbursement issue
for physicians and rural hospitals, nothing was done to assist teaching
hospitals or give hospitals a full inflationary update. Texas hospitals
alone are facing a loss of $53 million in 2003 due to Medicare
reimbursement cuts.
Hospital admissions have risen from 31 million patients in 1990 to 33
million in 2000, and the number of days in the hospital is rising as
well. Increased admissions, rising liability premiums, and the cost of
advanced technology have forced hospitals to cut back on services. The
cost of a pint of blood increased 31 percent in 2001, an additional
$920 million burden to hospitals. Such costs are continuing to rise,
yet Medicare reimbursements to hospitals are not keeping pace with
inflation and their margins are slowly shrinking. Fifty-eight percent
of hospitals are losing money on the Medicare patients they treat.
This legislation, the American Hospital Preservation Act, restores
the market basket update and the reimbursement for indirect medical
education, IME, payments to teaching hospitals. The market basket
update is an inflationary adjustment to account for the rising costs of
goods and services, and the IME payments give teaching hospitals an
additional Medicare reimbursement due to their higher costs of
inpatient care. Both of these factors were cut by the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997. Restoring the cuts means $289 million to Texas hospitals
and $6 billion nationwide over the next five years. Major teaching
hospitals are experiencing their lowest profit margin since the late
'90s, 2.4 percent. Patients, especially those who are seriously ill,
rely on teaching hospitals, which make up 78 percent of all trauma
centers and 80 percent of all burn beds. Although only 23 percent of
all hospitals are teaching hospitals, they deliver over two-thirds of
charity care.
Emergency rooms are increasingly used as a primary care clinic
because patients cannot find a physician who accepts Medicare, and they
are treating more individuals who are uninsured. In 2000, hospitals
provided $21.6 billion in uncompensated care.
Lower reimbursement rates coupled with bioterrorism risks and a
workforce shortage make our hospitals a time bomb waiting to go off.
Our hospitals are always open and must accept anyone who walks through
their doors. It is our responsibility to ensure they have adequate
resources from the Federal Government.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the American
Hospital Preservation Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 899
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 Hospital
Preservation Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. RESTORING FULL MARKET BASKET UPDATE FOR INPATIENT PPS
HOSPITALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (XVIII), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by striking subclause (XIX) and inserting the following
new subclauses:
``(XIX) for fiscal year 2004, the market basket percentage
increase plus 0.55 percentage points for hospitals in all
areas; and
``(XX) for fiscal year 2005 and each subsequent fiscal
year, the market basket percentage increase for hospitals in
all areas.''.
(b) Protecting Full Market Basket Update for Fiscal Years
2004 and Thereafter.--Such section, as amended by subsection
(a), is further amended by inserting after subclause (XX) the
following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the `applicable
percentage increase' for any fiscal year after fiscal year
2005 may not be a percentage that is less than the market
basket percentage increase for such year.''.
SEC. 2. FREEZING INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION (IME) ADJUSTMENT
PERCENTAGE AT 6.5 PERCENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (VI), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by striking subclause (VII) and inserting the following
new subclauses:
``(VII) during fiscal year 2003, ``c'' is equal to 1.35.
``(VIII) during fiscal year 2004, ``c'' is equal to 1.85;
and
``(IX) on or after October 1, 2004, `c' is equal to 1.6.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Determination of
Standardized Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1999 or'' and inserting ``1999,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or the American Hospital Preservation
Act of 2003'' after ``2000''.
______
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 900. A bill convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the
savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and the Intake
Irrigation Project to the pertinent irrigation districts; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of
legislation that helps a large number of family farmers on the border
of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects
Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from
Federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and
those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree there is
little value in having the Federal Government retain ownership.
I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and continue to
believe it helps us to achieve the long term goals of Montana
irrigators, and the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. In the past I
asked John W. Keys III, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, his
position on title transfers of irrigation projects like the Lower
Yellowstone, where local irrigation districts have successfully managed
the Federal properties, and where the Bureau has encouraged the
transfer of title to the Districts. His response to me was very
encouraging. He stated this type of title transfer ``makes sense and is
an opportunity to move facilities from Federal ownership to more
appropriate control.'' During our discussion Commissioner Keys promised
to work with me and the Irrigation District to make this a reality, and
I look forward to it.
The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the
original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of
Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. The Savage Unit was added in 1947-
48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help
spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the
number one industry in the area.
[[Page S5355]]
The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the
greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500
family farms rely on these projects for economic subsistence, and the
entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In
an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other
commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a
foundation for the businesses in the area.
As we all know, the agricultural economy is not as strong as we'd
like to it to be, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return
over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the
ideals that have made this country successful The 500 families impacted
are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people
to manage their own irrigation projects.
Every day, we see an example of where the Federal Government is
taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an
individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the
government gets involved in new projects, there are many that we can
safely pass on to State or local control. The Lower Yellowstone
Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my
colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as
possible.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record., as follows:
S. 900
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 ``Lower Yellowstone
Reclamation Projects Conveyance Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Diversion works.--The term ``Diversion Works'' means
the land in the N\1/2\NW\1/4\ of Sec. 36, T.18N., R.56E. P.
M., Montana, and the diversion dam structure, canal headworks
structure, and the first section of the main canal, all
contained therein.
(2) Intake irrigation district.--The term ``Intake
Irrigation District'' means the irrigation district by that
name that is organized under the laws of the State of Montana
and operates the Intake Project.
(3) Intake project.--The term ``Intake Project'' means the
Federal irrigation feature operated by the Intake Irrigation
District and authorized under the Act of August 11, 1939
(chapter 717; 53 Stat. 1418).
(4) Irrigation districts.--The term ``irrigation
districts'' means--
(A) the Intake Irrigation District;
(B) the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 1;
(C) the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2; and
(D) the Savage Irrigation District.
(5) Lower yellowstone irrigation district no. 1.--The term
``Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 1'' means the
irrigation district by that name that is organized under the
laws of the State of Montana and operates the part of the
Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project located in the State of
Montana.
(6) Lower yellowstone irrigation district no. 2.--The term
``Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2'' means the
irrigation district by that name that is organized under the
laws of the State of North Dakota and operates the part of
the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project located in the State
of North Dakota.
(7) Lower yellowstone irrigation project.--The term ``Lower
Yellowstone Irrigation Project'' means the Federal irrigation
feature operated by Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No.
1 and Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2 and
authorized by the Act of June 17, 1902 (chapter 1093; 32
Stat. 388).
(8) Memorandum of understanding.--The term ``Memorandum of
Understanding'' means the memorandum of understanding dated
November 16, 1999, and any subsequent replacements or
amendments between the Districts and the Montana Area Office,
Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, for the purpose
of defining certain principles by which the title to the
projects will be transferred from the United States to the
districts.
(9) Pick-sloan missouri basin program.--The term ``Pick-
Sloan Missouri Basin Program'' means the comprehensive
Federal program for multipurpose benefits within the Missouri
River Basin, including irrigation authorized by section 9 of
the Act of December 22, 1944, commonly known as the ``Flood
Control Act of 1944'' (chapter 665; 58 Stat. 891).
(10) Pick-sloan missouri basin program project use power.--
The term ``Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program Project Use
Power'' means power available for establishing and
maintaining the irrigation developments of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program.
(11) Projects.--The term ``Projects'' means--
(A) the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project;
(B) the Intake Irrigation Project; and
(C) the Savage Unit.
(12) Savage irrigation district.--The term ``Savage
Irrigation District'' means the irrigation district by that
name that is organized under the laws of the State of Montana
and operates the Savage Unit.
(13) Savage unit.--The term ``Savage Unit'' means the
Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, a
Federal irrigation development authorized by the Act of
December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act
of 1944'') (chapter 665; 58 Stat. 891).
(14) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF PROJECTS.
(a) Conveyances.--
(1) General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey works,
facilities, and lands of the Projects to the Irrigation
Districts in accordance with all applicable laws and pursuant
to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. The
conveyance shall take place in two stages, the first stage to
include all conveyances under this Act except Diversion Works
and the second stage to convey the Diversion Works.
(2) Lands.--
(A) General.--All lands, easements, and rights-of-way the
United States possesses that are to be conveyed by the
Secretary to the respective irrigation districts shall be
conveyed by quitclaim deed. Conveyance of such lands,
easements, and rights-of-way is subject to permits, licenses,
leases, rights-of-use, or right-of-way of record outstanding
in third parties on, over, or across such lands, easements,
and rights-of-way.
(B) Mineral rights.--Conveyance of all lands herein
described shall be subject to a reservation by the United
States reserving all minerals of a nature whatsoever,
excluding sand and gravel, and subject to oil, gas, and other
mineral rights heretofore reserved of record by or in favor
of third parties.
(3) Water rights.--The Secretary shall transfer to the
respective Irrigation Districts in accordance with and
subject to the law of the State of Montana, all natural flow,
wastewater, seepage, return flow, domestic water, stock
water, and groundwater rights held in part or wholly in the
name of the United States that are used to serve the lands
within the Irrigation Districts.
(4) Costs.--
(A) Reclamation withdrawn lands.--The Irrigation Districts
shall purchase Reclamation withdrawn lands as identified in
the Memorandum of Understanding for their value in providing
operation and maintenance benefits to the Irrigation
Districts.
(B) Savage unit repayment obligations.--
(i) Savage irrigation district.--As a condition of
transfer, the Secretary shall receive an amount from the
Savage Irrigation District equal to the present value of the
remaining water supply repayment obligation of $60,480 that
shall be treated as full payment under Contract Number I1r-
1525, as amended and as extended by Contract No. 9-07-60-
WO770.
(ii) Pick-sloan missouri basin program construction
obligation.--As a condition of transfer, the Secretary shall
accept $94,727 as payment from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program (Eastern Division) power customers under the terms
specified in this section, as consideration for the
conveyance under this subsection. This payment shall be out
of the receipts from the sale of power from the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program (Eastern Division) collected by the
Western Area Power Administration and deposited into the
Reclamation fund of the Treasury in fiscal year 2003. This
payment shall be treated as full and complete payment by the
power customers of the construction aid-to-irrigation
associated with the facilities of the Savage Unit.
(b) Revocation of Reclamation Withdrawals and Orders.--
(1) The Reclamation withdrawal established by Public Land
Order 4711 dated October 6, 1969, for the Lower Yellowstone
Irrigation Project in lots 1 and 2, section 3, T.23N., R. 59
E., is hereby revoked in its entirety.
(2) The Secretarial Order of March 22, 1906, which was
issued for irrigation works on lots 3 and 4 section 2, T.
23N., R. 59E., and Secretarial Order of August 8, 1905, which
was issued for irrigation works in section 2, T. 17 N., R. 56
E. and section 6, T. 17 N., R. 57 E., are hereby revoked in
their entirety.
(3) The Secretarial Order of August 24, 1903, and July 27,
1908, which were issued in connection with the Lower
Yellowstone Irrigation Project, are revoked insofar as they
affect the following lands:
(A) Lot 9 of Sec. 2 and lot 2 of Sec. 30, T.18N., R.57E.;
lot 3 of Sec. 4, T.19N., R.58E.; lots 2 and 3 and 6 and 7 of
Sec. 12, T.21N, R.58E.; SW\1/4\NW\1/4\ of Sec. 26, T.22N.,
R58E; lots 1 and 4 and 7 and NW\1/4\SW\1/4\ of Sec. 20,
T.22N., R.59E.; SE\1/4\NE\1/4\ of Sec. 13, T.23N., R.59E.;
and lot 2 of Sec. 18, T.24N., R.60E.; all in the Principal
Meridian, Montana.
(B) Lot 8 of Sec. 2 and lot 1 and lot 2 and lot 3 and NE\1/
4\NE\1/4\ of Sec. 10 and lot 2 of Sec. 11 and lot 6 of Sec.
18 and lot 3 of Sec. 35, T.151N., R.104W.; and lot 7 of Sec.
28, T.152N., R.104W.; all in the Fifth Principal Meridian,
North Dakota.
[[Page S5356]]
SEC. 4. REPORT.
If the conveyance under this Act has not occurred within 2
years after the date of the enactment of this Act for the
first stage conveyances as provided in section 3, and 5 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act for the second
stage conveyances as provided in section 3, the Secretary
shall provide a report to the Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Resources of the Senate on the status of the transfer and
anticipated completion date.
SEC. 5. RECREATION MANAGEMENT.
As a condition of the Conveyance of lands under section 3,
the Secretary shall require that Lower Yellowstone Irrigation
District No. 1 and Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No.
2 convey a perpetual conservation easement to the State of
Montana, at no cost to the State, for the purposes of
protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values
and permitting recreation on Federal lands in part to be
conveyed under this Act. Lower Yellowstone Irrigation
District No 1, Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District No. 2,
and the State of Montana have mutually agreed upon such
conservation easement.
SEC. 6. PROJECT PUMPING POWER.
The Secretary shall sustain the irrigation developments
established by the Lower Yellowstone and Intake Projects and
the Savage Unit as components of the irrigation plan under
the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program and shall
continue to provide the Irrigation Districts with Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin Project Use power at the Irrigation
Districts' pumping plants, except that the rate shall be at
the preference power rate and there shall be no ability-to-
pay adjustment.
SEC. 7. YELLOWSTONE RIVER FISHERIES PROTECTION.
(a) General.--The Secretary, prior to the transfer of title
of the Diversion Works and in cooperation with the Irrigation
Districts, shall provide fish protection devices to prevent
juvenile and adult fish from entering the Main Canal of the
Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project and allow bottom
dwelling fish species to migrate above the Project's Intake
Diversion Dam.
(b) Participation.--The Secretary and the Irrigation
District shall work cooperatively in planning, engineering,
and constructing the fish protection devices.
(c) Construction Schedule.--Construction of Fish Protection
Devices shall be completed within 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Monitoring.--The Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to the
transfer of title of the Diversion Works, shall establish and
conduct a monitoring plan to measure the effectiveness of the
devices for a period of 2 years after construction is
completed.
(e) Modifications.--The Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, prior to the transfer of title of the Diversion
Works, shall be responsible to modify the devices as
necessary to ensure proper functioning. All modifications
shall be completed within 3 years after the devices were
initially constructed.
(f) Costs.--Costs incurred in planning, engineering,
constructing, monitoring, and modifying all fish protection
devices shall be deemed nonreimbursable.
(g) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacements
Responsibility.--Following completion of monitoring and
modifications required under this section, the Irrigation
Districts shall operate, maintain, and replace the fisheries
protection devices in a manner to ensure proper functioning.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement
this section.
SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS AND FUTURE BENEFITS.
Upon conveyance of the projects under this Act, the
Irrigation Districts shall not be subject to the Reclamation
laws or entitled to receive any Reclamation benefits under
those laws except as provided in section 6.
SEC. 9. LIABILITY.
Effective on the date of conveyance of a project under this
Act, the United States shall not be liable under any State or
Federal law for damages of any kind arising out of any act,
omission, or occurrence relating to the projects, except for
damages caused by acts of negligence committed by the United
Stated or by its employees, agents, or contractors prior to
the date of this conveyance. Nothing in this section shall be
considered to increase the liability of the United States
beyond that currently provided in chapter 171 of title 28,
United States Code, popularly known as the Federal Tort Act.
SEC. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.
As a condition of the Conveyances under section 3, the
Secretary shall by no later than the date on which the
conveyances occur complete appropriate analyses of the
transfer in compliance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
and other applicable laws.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 901. A bill to make technical amendments to the Higher Education
Act of 1965, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my
colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Cochran, the Higher Education
Technical Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation makes several
technical and non-controversial changes to the Higher Education Act,
HEA, and is designed to expand access to higher education, provide
relief from burdensome legal requirements, improve the financial aid
process, and bring greater clarity to the law.
My bill provides for the re-enactment of two provisions in the HEA
that expired at the end of the last fiscal year, and which are of great
importance to students, their families, and schools. These provide
schools having low student loan default rates with exemptions from the
requirement that loan proceeds be disbursed in multiple installments,
and the requirement that the disbursement of loan proceeds to first-
time undergraduate borrowers be delayed for 30 days after classes
start. Thousands of institutions of higher education across America
have traditionally counted on these exemptions to save them time and
money in the disbursement of their limited financial aid resources.
These provisions should also serve as an incentive for schools to keep
their default rates low. At a time when both student and institutional
budgets are being squeezed, we should do what we can to provide them
with relief.
Furthermore, this legislation provides for greater access to federal
financial aid for those students participating in distance education
programs. Specifically, it provides a waiver to the rule that a school
having a 50 percent or more of its students or 50 percent or more of
its courses in distance education is ineligible for the Title IV
student aid programs. Schools eligible for the waiver must already be
participating in the programs and must have low cohort default rates.
This bill will also clarify that the HEA provision that limits the
aid eligibility of a student convicted of one or more drug offenses
applies only to those offenses that occur while the student is in
school and receiving aid. Thus, students who may have had drug problems
in the past but who want to turn their lives around through
postsecondary education will be able to do so.
The bill makes a number of other beneficial changes to the HEA. Most
notably, it: Helps protect home-schooled students by making it clear
that institutions of higher education will not lose their institutional
eligibility for Federal financial aid by admitting home-schooled
students; clarifies the Federal policy on the return of financial aid
funds when students withdraw, to better protect students' grant aid;
removes barriers to students seeking forbearance from lenders on
student loan payments, by eliminating the requirement that new
agreements between lenders and borrowers be in writing; instead, the
bill allows a lender to accept a request for forbearance over the
telephone, as long as a confirmation notice of the agreement reached is
provided to the borrower and the borrower's file is updated; makes
clear that under the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity
Program, the U.S. Department of Education can provide scholarship aid
to low-income and minority students to prepare for and attend law
school; eases requirements for Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, by
allowing them to apply for federal HSI grants without waiting two years
between applications; corrects a drafting error in current law that
mistakenly bars students attending certain nonprofit schools of
veterinary medicine from eligibility for the Federal Family Education
Loan Program; requires the GAO to conduct a study on how institutions
of higher education report teacher pass rates on state certification
exams; allows financial aid administrators to use ``professional
judgment'' to adjust a student's financial need in cases where the
student is a ward of the court; and expands the use of technology to
provide voter registration material directly to students in a timely
manner.
The Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2003 will provide
important benefits to our Nation's postsecondary students. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
[[Page S5357]]
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 902. A bill to declare, under the authority of Congress under
Article I, section 8, of the Constitution to ``provide and maintain a
Navy'', a national policy for the naval force structure required in
order to ``provide for the common defense'' of the United States
throughout the 21st century; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13
are the source of Congress' power regarding the Army and the Navy.
Interestingly, while clause 12 of the Constitution gives Congress the
power to raise and support armies, clause 13 requires Congress to
provide and maintain a navy. Thus, while we have discretionary
authority with regard to the establishment of an army, the Constitution
presumes that we will always have and maintain a navy.
Despite this constitutional duty, our current surface fleet is
smaller than our fleet in 1917, the year before we entered World War I.
What is worse, the future looks even more bleak. At current build
rates, we will sink below a 200 ship navy. In fact, we are building
ships at rates unseen since 1932--the height of the great depression.
I submit that this policy is unsustainable. The U.S. Navy is not only
a great pillar of American military might, it is an important tool in
our diplomacy. American ships conduct about 175 international exercises
every year. Yet, in recent years we have had to scale back
participation, and in some cases, cancel exercises because the ships
were simply not available. These joint exercises improve our ability to
coordinate activity with our allies. They allow us to instill American
notions of professionalism and service into the navies all around the
world, and they give us important intelligence on emerging naval
capabilities.
Additionally, the Navy serves as a powerful deterrent in situations
short of war. How many situations have we used our Navy as a symbol of
American resolve. The firepower and strength represented by a carrier
battle group has been important in the Taiwan Straights, in the Sea of
Japan and in the Persian Gulf. There is no reason to believe that it
will become any less so in future years.
The Quadrennial Defense Review puts the requirements for the number
of ships in the Navy at 360. Naval strategists warn that we are already
proportioning risk. In other words, we are already deciding what seas
we will leave underprotected, so as to ensure that we will have enough
ships to cover flash points.
The legislation I am offering today is a simple statement of policy.
It states that it is the policy of the United States to return to a
Navy of at least 375 ships. This should include 15 carrier battle
groups and 15 amphibious ready groups. Yet, even this number is a
dramatic decrease from our high point of a 600 ship navy. However, it
is an achievable goal, if Congress begins to appropriate resources to
the Navy shipbuilding account at reasonable levels.
The bill is based on another policy statement we adopted into law in
1999--the National Missile Defense Act. That law provided guidance to
our authorization and appropriations process. It also provide guidance
to the President's budget. It has been successful in ensuring that the
last two administrations have budgeted sufficient resources to keep our
national missile defense program on track. This statement of policy is
more important still. It is not a statement about a future technology,
it is a statement about a military capability that this country dare
not abandon.
I trust that the Senate shares my commitment to the future of our
fleet. While it may come at real expense, I know my colleagues share
the view that it is an expense worth making. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to ensure that this bill is adopted.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 902
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Naval Force
Structure Policy Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL NAVAL FORCE STRUCTURE POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States to rebuild as soon
as possible the size of the fleet of the United States Navy
to no fewer than 375 vessels in active service, to include 15
aircraft carrier battle groups and 15 amphibious ready
groups, in order to ensure peace through strength for the
United States throughout the 21st century.
S. 903
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 ``Renewal Community Employment
Credit Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. RENEWAL COMMUNITY EMPLOYERS MAY QUALIFY FOR
EMPLOYMENT CREDIT BY EMPLOYING RESIDENTS OF
CERTAIN OTHER RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1400H(b)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to modification) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) subsection (d)(1)(B) thereof shall be applied by
substituting `such renewal community, an adjacent renewal
community within the same State as such renewal community, or
a renewal community within such State which is within 5 miles
of any border of such renewal community' for `such
empowerment zone'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by
section 101(a) of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of
2000.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 903. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
employers in renewal communities to qualify for the renewal community
employment credit by employing residents of certain other renewal
communities; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Renewal Community Program has been a
tremendous success in promoting economic growth in my home State of
Louisiana. It has boosted local economies and cut unemployment in areas
that need it most. The Department of Housing and Urban Development
designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal
communities, under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.
Renewal communities can take advantage of wage tax credits, tax
deductions, capital gains tax exclusions, and bond financing to
stimulate job growth, promote economic development, and create
affordable housing. This assistance goes to areas with poverty rates of
at least 20 percent, and unemployment rates that are one-and-a-half
times the national level. Households in renewal communities have
incomes that are 80 percent below the median income of households in
their local jurisdictions.
One of the most beneficial business incentives under the program is
the wage tax credit an employer can receive for hiring and retaining
residents of renewal communities. Businesses can receive up to a $1,500
Federal tax credit for every newly hired or existing employee who lives
and works in the Renewal Community.
Louisiana has four renewal communities. One is in New Orleans and the
remaining three cover a large portion of the Central and Northern parts
of the State. These three renewal communities have common borders. This
is a tremendous benefit for Louisiana, but it also creates some
problems. Under the rules of the program a business in one renewal
community cannot receive the wage tax credit if they hire someone who
lives outside that renewal community, even if that person lives in the
renewal community right next door.
A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of
the State. The Ouachita Renewal Community which covers the City of
Monroe in Ouachita Parish is surrounded by a number of parishes that
fall into the North Louisiana Renewal Community--Morehouse Parish to
the north, Richland Parish to the east, Caldwell Parish to the south,
and Lincoln Parish to the west. The borders of these two renewal
communities are literally two or three miles apart. Monroe is the
economic hub of that part of my State. People from Morehouse, Caldwell,
and Richland Parishes will naturally look for work there. But under
current law, a company in Monroe cannot get a wage tax credit for
hiring someone who lives in the renewal community right next door.
[[Page S5358]]
The situation in Louisiana is fairly unique. I am not certain whether
Congress really anticipated that one State would receive more than one
renewal community designation or that those renewal communities would
be so close together. I certainly understand the desire to promote
economic development in specific areas. That can work if renewal
communities are far apart. But when they are so close together as they
are around Ouachita Parish, or a little further south in the middle of
my State, where the Central Louisiana Renewal Community borders the
North Louisiana Renewal Community, then we need to make the program
more flexible. A person living in Franklin Parish near the border with
Catahoula Parish does not necessarily know that both parishes lie in
two different renewal communities. If the closest job is in Catahoula
Parish, that is where a Franklin Parish resident is going to go. The
problem is that a business in Catahoula Parish would not receive the
tax break for hiring the worker from Franklin Parish--only a few miles
away.
We need to add some common sense flexibility to the Renewal Community
program. Today I am introducing legislation that will allow the
employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an adjacent
or nearby renewal community and still receive the wage tax credits
granted under the Act. This legislation essentially treats renewal
communities that are within five miles of each other as one. This bill
will make a small change in the Renewal Community program, but it will
make a big difference to the people of my state.
This legislation will make a very important program more successful
for Louisiana and other states like it. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed
in the Record.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Breaux, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Burns):
S. 905. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a broadband Internet access tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003. Last year, this bill had broad
bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors. Its companion legislation in the
House of Representatives had 227 cosponsors. If the Senate considers an
appropriately targeted and sized economic growth package, which
includes investment incentives for businesses, this legislation should
be a priority for inclusion in that legislation as it will help jump
start a struggling sector of the economy.
The convergence of computing and communications has fundamentally and
forever changed the way America lives and works. Individuals,
businesses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and many others, reap the
benefits of advanced networked communications exponentially each year.
However, where just a decade ago access to low bandwidth telephone
facilities met our communications needs, today many people, businesses
and other organizations require the ability to transmit and receive
large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic commerce, distance
learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to many web sites.
This need will only continue to grow. In the near future, access to
broadband services will be as critical as having a telephone.
Over the last several years, companies have built networks that meet
today's broadband need as fast as they can. Even with the recent
downturn in the telecommunications industry, technology companies
continue to roll out the current generation of broadband facilities in
urban and suburban areas. They continue to tear up streets to install
fiber optics, convert cable TV facilities to broadband telecom
applications and develop innovative new DSL technologies. As the
economy improves, these companies will greatly expand the rate of
deployment of these and other technologies for urban and suburban
consumers providing them access to the cutting-edge technologies and
services.
Other areas of this country are not as fortunate. In rural and inner
city areas access to even the current generation of broadband
communications is limited. Investment continues to lag behind wealthier
urban and suburban communities. This imbalance has only been
exacerbated due to the telecommunications industry's recent financial
troubles. In fact, only a limited number of broadband providers exist
outside the prosperous areas of big cities and suburban areas
nationwide. A few positive signs are occurring though. Small rural
telecommunications companies are slowly expanding into providing these
services. They are limited in their ability to provide these services
because of the expense of installing the infrastructure. This is
because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve, terrain
is difficult and populations are widely dispersed. Importantly, many of
our current broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more
than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office--
which is the case for most rural Americans. In inner cities, companies
may believe that lower household income levels will not support a
market for their services, so they choose not to invest in these
communities. This is a classic situation of market failure that we must
address.
The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity
to continue are alarming. People and businesses in well served
communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban
and suburban communities, will be able to build upon the inherent
advantages of a networked economy. People and businesses in other
areas, often in rural areas as in inner cities, including many areas in
my State of West Virginia, would continue to be at an economic and
educational disadvantage.
We have seen how savvy businesses have crushed their competitors who
failed to take advantage of technological innovations, businesses in
infrastructure-rich areas that already have an advantage, ultimately
could crush competitors in infrastructure-poor areas. This is equally
true for rural and inner city students, workers trying to gain new
skills, and regular individuals who want to participate in the
information-based New Economy compete against their non-rural peers.
The result could be devastating for Americans who live in rural areas
or in our inner cities: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain drain, and
business failure concentrated in their communities.
Denying Americans who live in rural areas and inner cities a chance
to participate in our information-based global economy is also bad for
the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate their
operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have
adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner city
locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of
their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper
production environments. It is not an understatement to say that the
deployment of technology could fundamentally transform the future of
rural and inner city America.
We have to make a decision on whether or not rural and inner city
communities are going to have the same opportunities as their wealthier
urban and suburban counterparts. I, along with many of my colleagues,
believe they should and must. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003
would address this disparity.
The Act would give companies the incentive to build current
generation broadband facilities in rural areas by using a very targeted
tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in broadband
facilities in rural or inner city areas a tax credit equal to ten
percent of their investments over the next 5 years. This tax credit
will help fight the growing disparity in technology that I just
described. The credit is also restricted to investments needed for
high-speed broadband telecommunications services. This means that only
powerful broadband services are covered. Companies cannot claim that
inferior services qualify for the credit. Only facilities that can
download data at a rate of speed of 1.0 megabytes per second, and
upload data at 180 kilobytes per second qualify. These speeds will
allow the broadest possible number of technologies to be eligible for
the credit.
[[Page S5359]]
In addition, the bill provides a 20 percent tax credit for companies
that invest in next generation broadband services. These powerful new
services that can deliver data capacities of 22 megabytes per second
download and 5 megabytes per second upload will be the infrastructure
the economy requires as the digital economy expands. We need to reward
the companies who have the foresight to invest in these next generation
broadband services--they will benefit the whole country. These limited
credits will provide the market the ability to affordably and
profitably serve rural and inner city communities.
The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003 is part of the solution to
the critically important digital divide problem. Rural Americans and
Americans living in inner cities must have the chance to participate in
the technological revolution that shows no signs of abating. Without
access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope
that the Members of this body will support this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 905
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart E of part IV of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules for
computing investment credit) is amended by inserting after
section 48 the following new section:
``SEC. 48A. BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 46, the
broadband credit for any taxable year is the sum of--
``(1) the current generation broadband credit, plus
``(2) the next generation broadband credit.
``(b) Current Generation Broadband Credit; Next Generation
Broadband Credit.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Current generation broadband credit.--The current
generation broadband credit for any taxable year is equal to
10 percent of the qualified expenditures incurred with
respect to qualified equipment providing current generation
broadband services to qualified subscribers and taken into
account with respect to such taxable year.
``(2) Next generation broadband credit.--The next
generation broadband credit for any taxable year is equal to
20 percent of the qualified expenditures incurred with
respect to qualified equipment providing next generation
broadband services to qualified subscribers and taken into
account with respect to such taxable year.
``(c) When Expenditures Taken Into Account.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) In general.--Qualified expenditures with respect to
qualified equipment shall be taken into account with respect
to the first taxable year in which--
``(A) current generation broadband services are provided
through such equipment to qualified subscribers, or
``(B) next generation broadband services are provided
through such equipment to qualified subscribers.
``(2) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--Qualified expenditures shall be taken
into account under paragraph (1) only with respect to
qualified equipment--
``(i) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer, and
``(ii) which is placed in service,
after December 31, 2002.
``(B) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
if property--
``(i) is originally placed in service after December 31,
2002, by any person, and
``(ii) sold and leased back by such person within 3 months
after the date such property was originally placed in
service,
such property shall be treated as originally placed in
service not earlier than the date on which such property is
used under the leaseback referred to in clause (ii).
``(d) Special Allocation Rules.--
``(1) Current generation broadband services.--For purposes
of determining the current generation broadband credit under
subsection (a)(1) with respect to qualified equipment through
which current generation broadband services are provided, if
the qualified equipment is capable of serving both qualified
subscribers and other subscribers, the qualified expenditures
shall be multiplied by a fraction--
``(A) the numerator of which is the sum of the number of
potential qualified subscribers within the rural areas and
the underserved areas which the equipment is capable of
serving with current generation broadband services, and
``(B) the denominator of which is the total potential
subscriber population of the area which the equipment is
capable of serving with current generation broadband
services.
``(2) Next generation broadband services.--For purposes of
determining the next generation broadband credit under
subsection (a)(2) with respect to qualified equipment through
which next generation broadband services are provided, if the
qualified equipment is capable of serving both qualified
subscribers and other subscribers, the qualified expenditures
shall be multiplied by a fraction--
``(A) the numerator of which is the sum of--
``(i) the number of potential qualified subscribers within
the rural areas and underserved areas, plus
``(ii) the number of potential qualified subscribers within
the area consisting only of residential subscribers not
described in clause (i),
which the equipment is capable of serving with next
generation broadband services, and
``(B) the denominator of which is the total potential
subscriber population of the area which the equipment is
capable of serving with next generation broadband services.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Antenna.--The term `antenna' means any device used to
transmit or receive signals through the electromagnetic
spectrum, including satellite equipment.
``(2) Cable operator.--The term `cable operator' has the
meaning given such term by section 602(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(5)).
``(3) Commercial mobile service carrier.--The term
`commercial mobile service carrier' means any person
authorized to provide commercial mobile radio service as
defined in section 20.3 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(4) Current generation broadband service.--The term
`current generation broadband service' means the transmission
of signals at a rate of at least 1,000,000 bits per second to
the subscriber and at least 128,000 bits per second from the
subscriber.
``(5) Multiplexing or demultiplexing.--The term
`multiplexing' means the transmission of 2 or more signals
over a single channel, and the term `demultiplexing' means
the separation of 2 or more signals previously combined by
compatible multiplexing equipment.
``(6) Next generation broadband service.--The term `next
generation broadband service' means the transmission of
signals at a rate of at least 22,000,000 bits per second to
the subscriber (or its equivalent when the data rate is
measured before being compressed for transmission) and at
least 5,000,000 bits per second from the subscriber (or its
equivalent as so measured).
``(7) Nonresidential subscriber.--The term `nonresidential
subscriber' means any person who purchases broadband services
which are delivered to the permanent place of business of
such person.
``(8) Open video system operator.--The term `open video
system operator' means any person authorized to provide
service under section 653 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 573).
``(9) Other wireless carrier.--The term `other wireless
carrier' means any person (other than a telecommunications
carrier, commercial mobile service carrier, cable operator,
open video system operator, or satellite carrier) providing
current generation broadband services or next generation
broadband service to subscribers through the wireless
transmission of energy through radio or light waves.
``(10) Packet switching.--The term `packet switching' means
controlling or routing the path of a digitized transmission
signal which is assembled into packets or cells.
``(11) Provider.--The term `provider' means, with respect
to any qualified equipment any--
``(A) cable operator,
``(B) commercial mobile service carrier,
``(C) open video system operator,
``(D) satellite carrier,
``(E) telecommunications carrier, or
``(F) other wireless carrier,
providing current generation broadband services or next
generation broadband services to subscribers through such
qualified equipment.
``(12) Provision of services.--A provider shall be treated
as providing services to 1 or more subscribers if--
``(A) such a subscriber has been passed by the provider's
equipment and can be connected to such equipment for a
standard connection fee,
``(B) the provider is physically able to deliver current
generation broadband services or next generation broadband
services, as applicable, to such a subscriber without making
more than an insignificant investment with respect to such
subscriber,
``(C) the provider has made reasonable efforts to make such
subscribers aware of the availability of such services,
``(D) such services have been purchased by 1 or more such
subscribers, and
``(E) such services are made available to such subscribers
at average prices comparable to those at which the provider
makes available similar services in any areas in which the
provider makes available such services.
``(13) Qualified equipment.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified equipment' means
equipment which provides current generation broadband
services or next generation broadband services--
[[Page S5360]]
``(i) at least a majority of the time during periods of
maximum demand to each subscriber who is utilizing such
services, and
``(ii) in a manner substantially the same as such services
are provided by the provider to subscribers through equipment
with respect to which no credit is allowed under subsection
(a)(1).
``(B) Only certain investment taken into account.--Except
as provided in subparagraph (C) or (D), equipment shall be
taken into account under subparagraph (A) only to the extent
it--
``(i) extends from the last point of switching to the
outside of the unit, building, dwelling, or office owned or
leased by a subscriber in the case of a telecommunications
carrier,
``(ii) extends from the customer side of the mobile
telephone switching office to a transmission/receive antenna
(including such antenna) owned or leased by a subscriber in
the case of a commercial mobile service carrier,
``(iii) extends from the customer side of the headend to
the outside of the unit, building, dwelling, or office owned
or leased by a subscriber in the case of a cable operator or
open video system operator, or
``(iv) extends from a transmission/receive antenna
(including such antenna) which transmits and receives signals
to or from multiple subscribers, to a transmission/receive
antenna (including such antenna) on the outside of the unit,
building, dwelling, or office owned or leased by a subscriber
in the case of a satellite carrier or other wireless carrier,
unless such other wireless carrier is also a
telecommunications carrier.
``(C) Packet switching equipment.--Packet switching
equipment, regardless of location, shall be taken into
account under subparagraph (A) only if it is deployed in
connection with equipment described in subparagraph (B) and
is uniquely designed to perform the function of packet
switching for current generation broadband services or next
generation broadband services, but only if such packet
switching is the last in a series of such functions performed
in the transmission of a signal to a subscriber or the first
in a series of such functions performed in the transmission
of a signal from a subscriber.
``(D) Multiplexing and demultiplexing equipment.--
Multiplexing and demultiplexing equipment shall be taken into
account under subparagraph (A) only to the extent it is
deployed in connection with equipment described in
subparagraph (B) and is uniquely designed to perform the
function of multiplexing and demultiplexing packets or cells
of data and making associated application adaptions, but only
if such multiplexing or demultiplexing equipment is located
between packet switching equipment described in subparagraph
(C) and the subscriber's premises.
``(14) Qualified expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified expenditure' means
any amount--
``(i) chargeable to capital account with respect to the
purchase and installation of qualified equipment (including
any upgrades thereto) for which depreciation is allowable
under section 168, and
``(ii) incurred after December 31, 2002, and before January
1, 2008.
``(B) Certain satellite expenditures excluded.--Such term
shall not include any expenditure with respect to the
launching of any satellite equipment.
``(C) Leased equipment.--Such term shall include so much of
the purchase price paid by the lessor of equipment subject to
a lease described in subsection (c)(2)(B) as is attributable
to expenditures incurred by the lessee which would otherwise
be described in subparagraph (A).
``(15) Qualified subscriber.--The term `qualified
subscriber' means--
``(A) with respect to the provision of current generation
broadband services--
``(i) any nonresidential subscriber maintaining a permanent
place of business in a rural area or underserved area, or
``(ii) any residential subscriber residing in a dwelling
located in a rural area or underserved area which is not a
saturated market, and
``(B) with respect to the provision of next generation
broadband services--
``(i) any nonresidential subscriber maintaining a permanent
place of business in a rural area or underserved area, or
``(ii) any residential subscriber.
``(16) Residential subscriber.--The term `residential
subscriber' means any individual who purchases broadband
services which are delivered to such individual's dwelling.
``(17) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means any census
tract which--
``(A) is not within 10 miles of any incorporated or census
designated place containing more than 25,000 people, and
``(B) is not within a county or county equivalent which has
an overall population density of more than 500 people per
square mile of land.
``(18) Rural subscriber.--The term `rural subscriber' means
any residential subscriber residing in a dwelling located in
a rural area or nonresidential subscriber maintaining a
permanent place of business located in a rural area.
``(19) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier'
means any person using the facilities of a satellite or
satellite service licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission and operating in the Fixed-Satellite Service under
part 25 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations or the
Direct Broadcast Satellite Service under part 100 of title 47
of such Code to establish and operate a channel of
communications for distribution of signals, and owning or
leasing a capacity or service on a satellite in order to
provide such distribution.
``(20) Saturated market.--The term `saturated market' means
any census tract in which, as of the date of the enactment of
this section--
``(A) current generation broadband services have been
provided by a single provider to 85 percent or more of the
total number of potential residential subscribers residing in
dwellings located within such census tract, and
``(B) such services can be utilized--
``(i) at least a majority of the time during periods of
maximum demand by each such subscriber who is utilizing such
services, and
``(ii) in a manner substantially the same as such services
are provided by the provider to subscribers through equipment
with respect to which no credit is allowed under subsection
(a)(1).
``(21) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means any person
who purchases current generation broadband services or next
generation broadband services.
``(22) Telecommunications carrier.--The term
`telecommunications carrier' has the meaning given such term
by section 3(44) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
153(44)), but--
``(A) includes all members of an affiliated group of which
a telecommunications carrier is a member, and
``(B) does not include any commercial mobile service
carrier.
``(23) Total potential subscriber population.--The term
`total potential subscriber population' means, with respect
to any area and based on the most recent census data, the
total number of potential residential subscribers residing in
dwellings located in such area and potential nonresidential
subscribers maintaining permanent places of business located
in such area.
``(24) Underserved area.--The term `underserved area' means
any census tract which is located in--
``(A) an empowerment zone or enterprise community
designated under section 1391,
``(B) the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone established
under section 1400,
``(C) a renewal community designated under section 1400E,
or
``(D) a low-income community designated under section 45D.
``(25) Underserved subscriber.--The term `underserved
subscriber' means any residential subscriber residing in a
dwelling located in an underserved area or nonresidential
subscriber maintaining a permanent place of business located
in an underserved area.''.
(b) Credit To Be Part of Investment Credit.--Section 46 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the amount of
investment credit) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following:
``(4) the broadband Internet access credit.''
(c) Special Rule for Mutual or Cooperative Telephone
Companies.--Section 501(c)(12)(B) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting
``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) from the sale of property subject to a lease
described in section 48A(c)(2)(B), but only to the extent
such income does not in any year exceed an amount equal to
the credit for qualified expenditures which would be
determined under section 48A for such year if the mutual or
cooperative telephone company was not exempt from taxation
and was treated as the owner of the property subject to such
lease.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 48 the following:
``Sec. 48A. Broadband internet access credit.''.
(e) Designation of Census Tracts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, designate and publish those census tracts meeting the
criteria described in paragraphs (17) and (24) of section
48A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this
section). In making such designations, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall consult with such other departments and
agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate.
(2) Saturated market.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of designating and publishing
those census tracts meeting the criteria described in
subsection (e)(20) of such section 48A--
(i) the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act the
form upon which any provider which takes the position that it
meets such criteria with respect to any census tract shall
submit a list of such census tracts (and any other
information required by the Secretary) not later than 60 days
after the date of the publication of such form, and
(ii) the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish an
aggregate list of such census tracts submitted and the
applicable providers not later than 30 days after the last
date such submissions are allowed under clause (i).
[[Page S5361]]
(B) No subsequent lists required.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall not be required to publish any list of census
tracts meeting such criteria subsequent to the list described
in subparagraph (A)(ii).
(C) Authority to disregard false submissions.--In addition
to imposing any other applicable penalties, the Secretary of
the Treasury shall have the discretion to disregard any form
described in subparagraph (A)(i) on which a provider
knowingly submitted false information.
(f) Other Regulatory Matters.--
(1) Prohibition.--No Federal or State agency or
instrumentality shall adopt regulations or ratemaking
procedures that would have the effect of confiscating any
credit or portion thereof allowed under section 48A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) or
otherwise subverting the purpose of this section.
(2) Treasury regulatory authority.--It is the intent of
Congress in providing the broadband Internet access credit
under section 48A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as
added by this section) to provide incentives for the
purchase, installation, and connection of equipment and
facilities offering expanded broadband access to the Internet
for users in certain low income and rural areas of the United
States, as well as to residential users nationwide, in a
manner that maintains competitive neutrality among the
various classes of providers of broadband services.
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe
such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out the purposes of section 48A of such Code, including--
(A) regulations to determine how and when a taxpayer that
incurs qualified expenditures satisfies the requirements of
section 48A of such Code to provide broadband services, and
(B) regulations describing the information, records, and
data taxpayers are required to provide the Secretary to
substantiate compliance with the requirements of section 48A
of such Code.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures incurred after December 31, 2002.
______
By Ms. STABENOW:
S. 906. A bill to provide for the certification of programs to
provide uninsured employees of small business access to health
coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Health
Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003.
Last month, thousands of Americans participated in a week-long
discussion about covering the uninsured. The sheer breadth of the
groups that participated in the unprecedented effort demonstrates the
urgency of this issue. Labor unions were united with business groups,
doctors with nurses, and charity health care providers with for-profit
hospitals and insurance companies. They all came together to call on
Congress to find a way to provide health coverage for uninsured
Americans.
I was glad to see awareness being raised about who the uninsured are
and what it means to be without health coverage in America. There is a
great misconception that uninsured Americans are largely unemployed or
on Welfare. That is simply not the case. More than 80 percent of
uninsured Americans are part of working families, and almost half work
for small businesses. If we can help small businesses cover their
employees, we will have made great progress in covering the uninsured.
The bill I am introducing today is aimed at making coverage more
affordable for employees of small businesses through what is called a
``three-share'' program. The three-share model is an innovative
community-based idea that has been working across the U.S. from
California to Arkansas to North Carolina; and of course in Michigan.
The name three-share stems from the program's payment structure.
Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the
employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the
remaining 40 percent of the cost.
In a three share model, a non-profit or local government entity
serves as the manager of the plan. They design a benefit package by
negotiating directly with providers or contracting through an insurance
company. Then, they recruit small businesses that have not offered
insurance coverage to their employees for the past year. The average
cost for coverage is about $1,800 per year, much lower than the
national average for commercial insurance, which on average costs
$3,500 for a single person and $8,500 for a family. Of the $1,800, the
employer and employee would each pay approximately $540 and the
community would pay about $720.
Different three share plans have received funds for the community
portion from various places. In Michigan, most of the money has come
from Medicaid funds. A plan in California uses money from the tobacco
settlement while a plan in Arkansas raises funds through church events
and other community initiatives.
Unfortunately, despite the nuances that distinguish three share plans
from one another, they all share a common challenge: they all lack a
stable and sustainable funding source for the community share.
If passed, my bill would help alleviate that problem by offering a
refundable tax credit to small businesses who participate in three
share plans. Businesses would pay their own share plus the community
share up front and receive the community share back through a
refundable tax credit.
My bill would also encourage the development of more three share
plans by providing seed money through the Community Access Program at
the Health Resources Services Administration.
This bill would maintain the current employer-based system and
leverage every $1 of public money with $2 of private funds. It would
not impose any new funding mandates on state or local governments nor
would it create new bureaucracy. It is an innovative community-based
approach that could work throughout the country if funding is
available.
Insuring more working families will also take the pressure off state
Medicaid budgets. Adequate care for those presently uninsured will also
help slash the billions we wind up spending on uncompensated care.
Finally, I believe providing health care for these families fulfills
a moral commitment. No one in America who gets up in the morning and
goes to work should go to sleep at night fearful that an illness or
injury in the family could wipe out everything they have worked for.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be
printed in the Record.
There being no objeciton, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 906
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 ``Health Care Access for Small
Businesses Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) For most of the past 16 years, the number of Americans
without health insurance has been on the rise, reaching more
than 41,000,000 in 2002.
(2) People without health insurance are less likely to get
preventive care and often delay or forgo needed care. They
are therefore more likely than those with health insurance to
be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided.
(3) Not only are the health and financial circumstances of
uninsured Americans adversely affected by the lack of health
insurance, their care is ultimately being paid for in the
least efficient manner: after they get sick.
(4) People who were uninsured during any part of 2001
received $99,000,000,000 in care, of which $34,500,000,000
was not paid for either out of pocket or by a private or
public insurance source. Federal, State, and local
governments covered 85 percent of such uncompensated care,
amounting to $30,000,000,000.
(5) Private health insurance enrollees also help pay for
uncompensated care through higher premiums.
(6) Covering more Americans will not only contribute to
better overall health, it will lower the amount of health
care costs assumed by taxpayers, businesses, and consumers.
(7) Helping small businesses gain access to affordable
health care benefits is essential to insuring more Americans.
(8) Eighty-two percent of uninsured people are part of
working families.
(9) More than \1/2\ of small businesses with less than 50
employees do not offer their employees health insurance.
(10) Innovative community-based solutions have developed
and should serve as a model for insuring more Americans.
SEC. 3. THREE-SHARE PROGRAMS.
The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE XXII--PROVIDING FOR THE UNINSURED
``SEC. 2201. THREE-SHARE PROGRAMS.
``(a) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall promulgate regulations for the
certification of three-share programs for purposes of section
36 of the Internal Revenue Code.
[[Page S5362]]
``(2) Three-share program requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall require, for
purposes of a certification under regulations under paragraph
(1) that each three-share program shall--
``(i) be either a non-profit or local governmental entity;
``(ii) define a region in which such program will provide
services;
``(iii) have the capacity to carry out administrative
functions of managing health plans, including monthly
billings, verification/enrollment of eligible employers and
employees, maintenance of membership rosters, development of
member materials (such as handbooks and identification
cards), customer service, and claims processing; and
``(iv) have community involvement, as determined by the
Administrator.
``(B) Payment.--To obtain the certification described in
paragraph (1), a three-share program shall pay the costs of
services provided under subparagraph (A)(ii) by charging a
monthly premium for each covered individual to be divided as
follows:
``(i) Not more than thirty percent of such fee shall be
paid by a qualified employee desiring coverage under the
three-share program.
``(ii) At least seventy percent of such fee shall be paid
by the qualified employer of such a qualified employee.
``(3) Coverage.--
``(A) In general.--To obtain the certification described in
paragraph (1) a 3-share program shall provide at least the
following benefits:
``(i) Physicians services.
``(ii) In-patient hospital services.
``(iii) Out-patient services.
``(iv) Emergency room visits.
``(v) Emergency ambulance services.
``(vi) Diagnostic lab fees and x-rays.
``(vii) Prescription drug benefits.
``(B) Limitation.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be
construed to require that a three-share program provide
coverage for services performed outside the region described
in paragraph (2)(A)(i).
``(C) Preexisting conditions.--A program described in
subparagraph (A) shall not be eligible for certification
under paragraph (1) if any individual can be excluded from
coverage under such program because of a preexisting health
condition.
``(b) Startup Grants for Three-Share Programs.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator may award startup
grants to eligible entities to establish three-share programs
for certification under subsection (a).
``(2) Three-share program plan.--Each entity desiring a
grant under this subsection shall develop a plan for the
establishment and operation of a three-share program that
meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (a).
``(3) Application.--Each entity desiring a grant under this
subsection shall submit an application to the Administrator
at such time, in such manner and containing such information
as the Administrator may require, including--
``(A) the three-share program plan described in paragraph
(2); and
``(B) an assurance that the eligible entity will--
``(i) determine a benefit package;
``(ii) recruit businesses and employees for the three-share
program;
``(iii) build and manage a network of health providers or
contract with an existing network or licensed insurance
provider; and
``(iv) manage all administrative needs.
``(4) Number of grants.--An eligible entity may receive
only 1 grant under this subsection for each three-share
program and may not receive a grant for such program under
both this subsection and subsection (c).
``(c) Grants for Existing Three-Share Programs To Meet
Certification Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may award grants to
three-share programs that are operating on the date of
enactment of this section, to assist such programs in meeting
the certification requirements of subsection (a).
``(2) Number of grants.--An eligible entity may receive
only 1 grant under this subsection for a three-share program
and may not receive a grant for such program under both this
subsection and subsection (b).
``(3) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Administrator may require.
``(d) Risk Pool Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may award grants to
eligible entities administering certified three-share
programs to enhance the risk pools of such programs.
``(2) Number of grants.--An eligible entity administering a
three-share program described in paragraph (1) may receive
only 1 grant under this subsection for such three-share
program.
``(3) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Administrator may require.
``(e) Application of State Laws.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to preempt State law.
``(f) Distressed business formula.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration shall develop a formula
to determine which businesses qualify as distressed
businesses for purposes of this Act.
``(2) Effect on insurance market.--Granting eligibility to
a distressed business using the formula under paragraph (1)
shall not interfere with the insurance market. Any business
found to have reduced benefits to qualify as a distressed
business under the formula under paragraph (1) shall not be
eligible for any three-share program certified pursuant to
this section.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration.
``(2) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual'
means--
``(A) a qualified employee; or
``(B) a child under the age of 23 or a spouse of such
qualified employee who--
``(i) lacks access to health care coverage through their
employment or employer;
``(ii) lacks access to health coverage through a family
member;
``(iii) is not eligible for coverage under the medicare
program under title XVIII or the medicaid program under title
XIX; and
``(iv) does not qualify for benefits under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI.
``(3) Distressed business.--The term `distressed business'
means a business that--
``(A) in light of economic hardship and rising health care
premiums may be forced to discontinue or scale back its
health care coverage; and
``(B) qualifies as a distressed business according to the
formula under subsection (f).
``(4) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means an
entity that meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(A).
``(5) Full time.--The term `full time', for purposes of
employment, means regularly working at least 35 hours per
week.
``(6) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee'
means any individual employed by a qualified employer who
meets certain criteria including--
``(A) working full time;
``(B) lacking access to health coverage through a family
member or common law partner;
``(C) not being eligible for coverage under the medicare
program under title XVIII or the medicaid program under title
XIX; and
``(D) agreeing that the share of fees described in
subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) shall be paid in the form of payroll
deductions from the wages of such individual.
``(7) Qualified employer.--The term `qualified employer'
means an employer as defined in section 3(d) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(d)) who--
``(A) is a small business concern as defined in section
3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632);
``(B) is located in the region described in subsection
(a)(2)(A)(i); and
``(C) has not contributed to the health care benefits of
its employees for at least 12 months consecutively or
currently provides insurance but is classified as a
distressed business.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be
necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.''.
SEC. 4. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR PORTION OF EMPLOYER COSTS OF
THREE-SHARE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as
section 37 and inserting after section 35 the following new
section:
``SEC. 36. EMPLOYER COSTS OF THREE-SHARE PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible employer,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle an amount equal to 40 percent of the costs of a
three-share program resulting from the participation of the
taxpayer in such program during the taxable year.
``(b) Eligible Employer.--For purposes of this section, the
term `eligible employer' means any employer which pays or
incurs at least 70 percent of the costs of a three-share
program resulting from the participation of the taxpayer in
such program during the taxable year.
``(c) Three-Share Program.--For purposes of this section,
the term `three-share program' means an employee health care
coverage program approved for participation by an eligible
employer pursuant to title XXII of the Social Security Act.
``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit
under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed
with respect to costs of a three-share program taken into
account under subsection (a).
``(e) Advanced Refundability.--The Secretary shall provide
for the advanced refundability of the credit allowed under
this section to be made in quarterly payments to taxpayers
providing such information as the Secretary requires in order
to make a proper determination of such payments.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or
appropriate to carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
[[Page S5363]]
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 36 of such Code''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking the last item and inserting the following new items:
``Sec. 36. Employer costs of three-share program.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____
Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003
Creating affordable health insurance for small businesses
is key to reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Dozens
of communities around the country, using seed money from a
federal grant program called the Community Access Program
(CAP), have developed and implemented a unique way to make
health coverage affordable to small businesses through
``three-share'' programs.
three-share programs
A three-share program is a community-based health plan that
is paid for jointly by the employer, employee and the
community.
Under a typical three-share model, a community-based
entity, either a non-profit or local government does the
following:
1. Works with local health care providers or an insurance
entity to develop a benefit package;
2. Signs up small businesses in the community that do not
offer health insurance to their employees; and
3. Takes responsibility for administering the program.
An enrolled small business and their employees each pay 30
percent of the monthly premium while the community pays the
remaining 40 percent.
thousands of Americans who previously went without health
insurance are now covered through three-share programs.
Unfortunately, entities managing these programs are
struggling to secure a steady revenue source for the
community share of the costs.
The Health Insurance Access for Small Businesses Act of 2003
The Health Insurance Access for Small Businesses Act of
2003 encourages the development of more three-share programs
by increasing seed money for non-profits or local governments
interested in creating a program in their community. The bill
provides sustainable funding for the community share if the
costs through a refundable tax credit for small businesses.
Expand seed funding for three-share through Community
Access Program (CAP)--CAP is a grant program designed to help
communities expand coverage to the uninsured that has helped
many non-profits and local governments start three-share
programs. Funding is authorized to increase by $50 million
for FY04.
Refundable tax credit for the community portion--This bill
will establish a steady revenue stream for the third share
through a refundable tax credit to the employer. The employee
would pay 30 percent of the premium through payroll
deductions. The employer would pay their 30 percent of the
premium plus the 40 percent that is the community share. The
40 percent would be returned to the business through a
refundable tax credit.
Specifics
Target group: Small businesses not currently offering
health coverage to employees or distressed small businesses,
as defined by the Small Business Act, that are in jeopardy of
dropping health coverage because of rising premiums and
economic hardship.
Employer Eligibility:
Located within a community defined by the administering
entity
Has not offered or contributed to health care benefits of
employees for previous 12 consecutive months
Qualifies as a ``distressed business'' under HRSA
regulations.
Employee Eligibility:
Works full time (a minimum of 35 hours);
Lacks access to health coverage through employer;
Lacks access to health coverage through a family member or
common law partner;
Is not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare;
Agrees to payroll deductions.
Family Eligibility:
Spouse of participating employee not covered through their
employer or any public insurance program;
Dependent of participating employee under the age of 23 not
eligible for SCHIP.
Shared Premiums: Average benefit is estimated to be $540
per year for an employee, $540 for employer and $720 will be
refunded through the tax credit to the employer.
Employer pays 30 percent of annual cost;
Employee pays 30 percent of annual cost;
Refundable tax credit to employer for 40 percent of the
total annual cost.
Minimum Benefits: All benefit packages must include the
following:
Physicians services;
In-patient hospital services;
Out-patient services;
Emergency room visits;
Emergency ambulance services;
Diagnostic lab and x-rays;
Prescription drug benefits.
Note.--People may not be excluded because of pre-existing
conditions. Coverage for services performed outside
designated regional area not required.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 907. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a
flat tax only on individual taxable earned income and business taxable
income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the subject of
taxation from a little different perspective, a legislative proposal
which, if adopted, would add very considerably to productivity in
America, and that is a proposal for a flat tax. In the fall of 1994,
Richard Armey of the House of Representatives introduced a flat tax. I
studied it, then in the spring of 1995, I introduced a flat tax for the
Senate. That was the first one introduced. I have introduced it in
successive years.
I usually pick April 15, because April 15 is tax filing day. But this
year we are going to be in recess for the spring break. I had thought
today would be the last day we would be in session. That is open to
debate at this point. I just came from a conference of the
Appropriations Committee, and there are a great many unresolved issues.
I posed the question to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee:
What time do we vote on Sunday?
Some of my colleagues may be listening on C-SPAN2, and that will give
them a jolt: What time do we vote on Sunday? Or we might not vote as
early as Sunday. We might pick a time on Monday.
I got the attention of the clerks, too, by talking about something
important: When are we going to finish the business of the Senate? The
distinguished Parliamentarian is nodding his head in chagrin as to what
is happening here.
Some suggestions have been floated around the Appropriations
Committee of a way to solve this impasse between the House and the
Senate on appropriations, the impasse between the House and the Senate
on the budget, and that is a constitutional amendment for a unicameral
legislature. That would be a shocker. For anybody watching C-SPAN2,
that means one chamber. Then the question would come up: Which chamber
will it be?
Nobody is going to go to a unicameral legislature, and I do not know
when we are going to conclude the business of the Senate. I may be
offering this flat tax legislation on the wrong day. Perhaps I ought to
wait, because we may still be here on April 15, which would be next
Tuesday.
In all seriousness, we have the most extraordinarily complex system
for filing taxes ever devised. In the midst of an overwhelming
bureaucracy and a regulatory system in Washington, DC, nothing compares
to the Federal tax code.
The Federal tax code has grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9
million words and 17,000 pages at the present time. A study showed that
more than 13 hours are consumed by the average American--rather, more
than 13 hours are consumed on average--there is no such thing as an
average American--on average by taxpayers in filling out the principal
Form 1040. And if one goes to the various schedules, it can be another
5\1/2\ hours or 7\1/2\ hours.
I just finished filling out my tax return, and it is inordinately
complicated. It is insufficient to be a Philadelphia lawyer to
understand the Federal tax code, and then the State taxes, and then
city taxes, the wage tax, the property tax, and the real estate tax. It
is a nightmare.
It is possible to change all of that by going to a flat tax, and then
the tax return would be on a postcard. The wonders of television.
People can see the postcard. It will take about 15 minutes to fill out
a postcard, which would identify the individual, specify the total
compensation, specify the allowance, the number of dependents, and in
the course of 15 minutes it would be finished.
This tax would be calculated on a flat rate of 20 percent. It would
be very beneficial to people at all levels of the income strata except
for those who engage in tax shelters. The average American today, or in
the middle income, a family of four, which does not itemize deductions,
pays taxes on all income over $19,850. Under this flat tax, there would
be a personal exemption of $27,500 for a family of four, and taxes
would be paid only over that amount.
[[Page S5364]]
After having just criticized charts, my staff has brought me a chart
which they prepared. I certainly would not want to omit the showing of
this chart. The writing is too small for reading on C-SPAN2, but it
specifies the identity of the person, the total compensation, the
personal allowance, and it can be filled out in the course of 15
minutes.
A superior depiction, in my opinion, is the postcard. People can deal
more easily with postcards than they can with charts.
I have provided for two deductions which I am maintaining, deductions
on interest and charitable contributions. It may be that ultimately we
will have a totally flat tax, which would reduce another percent down
to 19 percent. I have included interest on home mortgages because it is
so prevalent, and I believe Americans might be very surprised not to be
able to deduct their interest on home mortgages. That interest on home
mortgages has been a great stimulus for housing construction and also a
great encouragement for people to own their own homes. That is very
important as a societal matter.
I have also retained the deduction on charitable contributions, which
remains very important. That was reinforced by the Senate earlier this
week by providing an increase in charitable contributions deductibility
looking toward faith-based initiatives.
What I would like to do most emphatically would be to get the debate
started. This body, the House, and the Treasury Department have never
seriously considered a flat tax. It ought to be seriously considered.
Whether it would be accepted or not would be the outcome of the debate.
The flat tax proposal which I am bringing to you today, which is
modeled after the outline by Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka of
Stanford University, has been very carefully thought through. It is a
neutral tax scheme. An analysis of people at various income levels
shows that it is universally beneficial for all except those who engage
in tax shelters and pay no tax at all.
The greatest benefit would be the savings to the American people of
some 5.8 billion hours a year and some $194 billion in preparation
expenses. I have actually seen estimates on the cost of tax compliance
as high as $800 billion. Again, these estimates are such that nobody
really knows, but as lawyers say in litigation, the pain and suffering
that goes with filing these returns, or the cruel and unusual
punishment involved in making these computations and the study
involved, it would be a great relief to the American people. It would
be win, win, win. There would be great savings in time. There would be
savings in individual taxes, and there would be a tremendous stimulus
to the economy so that so many corporations and businesses would no
longer have to have a special office, which is the practice in many
places, for the tax collector who comes in to conduct the audit on a
yearly basis.
To reiterate, in less than one week, American taxpayers face another
Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety,
and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during
``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings poring over
page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records
looking for information, and struggling to find and fill out all the
appropriate forms on their Federal tax returns. Americans are
intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their
instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to
file. Given the approximately 325 possible forms, not to mention the
instructions that accompany, simply trying to determine which form to
file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to
the Tax Foundation, American taxpayers, including businesses, spend
more than 5.8 billion hours and $194 billion each year in complying
with tax laws. That works out to more than $2,400 per U.S. household.
Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations
which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to
over 6.9 million words in 2000. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance
has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the
Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has
only about 1,773,000 words.
The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far
too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the
estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 2002
Form 1040 is estimated to take 13 hours and 10 minutes to complete.
Moreover this does not include the estimated time to complete the
accompanying schedules, such as Schedule A, for itemized deductions,
which carries an estimated preparation time of 5 hours, 37 minutes, or
Schedule D, for reporting capital gains and losses, shows an estimated
preparation time of 7 hours, 35 minutes. Moreover, this complexity is
getting worse each year. Just from 1998 to 2002 the estimated time to
prepare Form 1040 jumped 96 minutes.
It is no wonder that well over half of all taxpayers, 56 percent
according to a recent survey now hire an outside professional to
prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only 29
percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a
significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the
tax system is too complex for them to deal with. We all understand that
paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be
cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the
Internal Revenue Code is brisk--Congress made about 9,500 Tax Code
changes in the past 12 years. And we are far from being finished. Year
after year, we continue to ask the same question--is there not a better
way?
My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable
chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat
tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present Tax Code, with
its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would
institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and
businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone but is intended to move
the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which
are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity,
fairness, and economic growth.
My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have
outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us
to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations, and
instructions and delete most of the 6.9 million words in the Internal
Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent
in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would
spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-
sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find
valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity or
for more time with their families instead of poring over tax tables,
schedules, and regulations.
My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a
taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize
prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:
A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and
attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.8 billion
hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.
The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules,
regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in
1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages currently. It would also
allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of 117,000 employees.
Economists estimate a growth of over $2 trillion in national wealth
over 7 years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in
personal wealth for every man, woman, and child in America. This growth
would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.
Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity
rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater
economic expansion.
Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall
substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many
of the current disincentives to savings.
Americans would be able to save up to $194 billion they currently
spend every year in tax compliance.
As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there
will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud, which now
amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue annually.
[[Page S5365]]
Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on
the $7 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal
Revenue Service.
The most dramatic way to show what the flat tax is to consider that
the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will
allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-
line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out.
At my town hall meetings across Pennsylvania, the public support for
fundamental tax reform is overwhelming. I would point out that in those
speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: 1, my copy
of the Constitution; and, 2, a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I
soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax
postcard. Many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see
what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only
take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer
burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital
gains and estates.
This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax
burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2002
tax year, the standard deduction is $4,700 for a single taxpayer,
$6,900 for a head of household and $7,850 for a married couple filing
jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is
$3,000. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does
not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $19,850--
these are personal exemptions of $12,000 and a standard deduction of
$7,850. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would
receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax on only
income over that amount.
The tax loopholes enable write-offs to save some $393 billion a year.
What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions
in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and
found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to
the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud
because of the simplicity of the tax code, the taxpayer being able to
find out exactly what he or she owes.
This bill is modeled after legislation organized and written by two
very distinguished professors of law at Stanford University, Professor
Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the
Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I
introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2,
1995, S. 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate,
resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption
of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to
pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation
in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-
adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances.
I re-introduced the bill two Congresses ago on April 15, 1999--income
tax day--in a bill denominated as S. 822. More recently, I introduced
my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax
Reconciliation bill. The amendment was not adopted.
Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat
tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing
our Nation's Tax Code and the policies which underlie it. I began the
study of the complexities of the Tax Code over 40 years ago as a law
student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my
practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the
spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law
Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operations for
Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova
L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt
retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not
others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities
of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to
some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the
world to understand is the income tax.''
The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions
whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the
legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to
$100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While
these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by
continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable
contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply
ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they
should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also
political practicality. With only those two deductions maintained,
passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them,
probably impossible.
In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a
modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that
the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19-
percent rate, is based on a well-documented model founded on reliable
governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19
percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage
interest and charitable deductions.
This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source so that
there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains,
gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the Tax Code can become a
powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into
economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the
standard of living for all Americans.
The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it
will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove
much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and
corporate taxpayers and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their
energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which
rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth
in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and
savings accounts.
Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within 7 years of
enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6-percent increase
in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased
capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in
the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But
Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system
that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a
system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and
prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax
system.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill, be printed in the Record.
S. 907
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENT OF 1986
CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Flat Tax
Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; amendment of 1986 Code.
Sec. 2. Flat tax on individual taxable earned income and business
taxable income.
Sec. 3. Repeal of estate and gift taxes.
Sec. 4. Additional repeals.
Sec. 5. Effective dates.
(c) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 2. FLAT TAX ON INDIVIDUAL TAXABLE EARNED INCOME AND
BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 of subtitle A is
amended to read as follows:
``Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability
``Part I. Tax on individuals.
``Part II. Tax on business activities.
``PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
``Sec. 1. Tax imposed.
``Sec. 2. Standard deduction.
``Sec. 3. Deduction for cash charitable contributions.
``Sec. 4. Deduction for home acquisition indebtedness.
``Sec. 5. Definitions and special rules.
``SECTION 1. TAX IMPOSED.
``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed on every
individual a tax equal to 20
[[Page S5366]]
percent of the taxable earned income of such individual.
``(b) Taxable Earned Income.--For purposes of this section,
the term `taxable earned income' means the excess (if any)
of--
``(1) the earned income received or accrued during the
taxable year, over
``(2) the sum of--
``(A) the standard deduction,
``(B) the deduction for cash charitable contributions, and
``(C) the deduction for home acquisition indebtedness,
for such taxable year.
``(c) Earned Income.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `earned income' means wages,
salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received
from sources within the United States as compensation for
personal services actually rendered, but does not include
that part of compensation derived by the taxpayer for
personal services rendered by the taxpayer to a corporation
which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather
than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal
services actually rendered.
``(2) Taxpayer engaged in trade or business.--In the case
of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both
personal services and capital are material income-producing
factors, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a
reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal
services rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 30
percent of the taxpayer's share of the net profits of such
trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.
``SEC. 2. STANDARD DEDUCTION.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term
`standard deduction' means the sum of--
``(1) the basic standard deduction, plus
``(2) the additional standard deduction.
``(b) Basic Standard Deduction.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the basic standard deduction is--
``(1) $17,500 in the case of--
``(A) a joint return, and
``(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 5(a)),
``(2) $15,000 in the case of a head of household (as
defined in section 5(b)), and
``(3) $10,000 in the case of an individual--
``(A) who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse
or head of household, or
``(B) who is a married individual filing a separate return.
``(c) Additional Standard Deduction.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the additional standard deduction is $5,000
for each dependent (as defined in section 5(d))--
``(1) whose earned income for the calendar year in which
the taxable year of the taxpayer begins is less than the
basic standard deduction specified in subsection (b)(3), or
``(2) who is a child of the taxpayer and who--
``(A) has not attained the age of 19 at the close of the
calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer
begins, or
``(B) is a student who has not attained the age of 24 at
the close of such calendar year.
``(d) Inflation Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 2004, each dollar amount
contained in subsections (b) and (c) shall be increased by an
amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment for the calendar year
in which the taxable year begins.
``(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the cost-of-living adjustment for any calendar year is
the percentage (if any) by which--
``(A) the CPI for the preceding calendar year, exceeds
``(B) the CPI for calendar year 2003.
``(3) CPI for any calendar year.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the CPI for any calendar year is the average of the
Consumer Price Index as of the close of the 12-month period
ending on August 31 of such calendar year.
``(4) Consumer price index.--For purposes of paragraph (3),
the term `Consumer Price Index' means the last Consumer Price
Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of
Labor. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the revision
of the Consumer Price Index which is most consistent with the
Consumer Price Index for calendar year 1986 shall be used.
``(5) Rounding.--If any increase determined under paragraph
(1) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to
the next lowest multiple of $50.
``SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR CASH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this part, there shall
be allowed as a deduction any charitable contribution (as
defined in subsection (b)) not to exceed $2,500 ($1,250, in
the case of a married individual filing a separate return),
payment of which is made within the taxable year.
``(b) Charitable Contribution Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term `charitable contribution' means a
contribution or gift of cash or its equivalent to or for the
use of the following:
``(1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any
political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United
States or the District of Columbia, but only if the
contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes.
``(2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or
foundation--
``(A) created or organized in the United States or in any
possession thereof, or under the law of the United States,
any State, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the
United States,
``(B) organized and operated exclusively for religious,
charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or
to foster national or international amateur sports
competition (but only if no part of its activities involve
the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for
the prevention of cruelty to children or animals,
``(C) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the
benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and
``(D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under
section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence
legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene
in (including the publishing or distributing of statements),
any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for public office.
A contribution or gift by a corporation to a trust, chest,
fund, or foundation shall be deductible by reason of this
paragraph only if it is to be used within the United States
or any of its possessions exclusively for purposes specified
in subparagraph (B). Rules similar to the rules of section
501(j) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(3) A post or organization of war veterans, or an
auxiliary unit or society of, or trust or foundation for, any
such post or organization--
``(A) organized in the United States or any of its
possessions, and
``(B) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the
benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
``(4) In the case of a contribution or gift by an
individual, a domestic fraternal society, order, or
association, operating under the lodge system, but only if
such contribution or gift is to be used exclusively for
religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational
purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or
animals.
``(5) A cemetery company owned and operated exclusively for
the benefit of its members, or any corporation chartered
solely for burial purposes as a cemetery corporation and not
permitted by its charter to engage in any business not
necessarily incident to that purpose, if such company or
corporation is not operated for profit and no part of the net
earnings of such company or corporation inures to the benefit
of any private shareholder or individual.
For purposes of this section, the term `charitable
contribution' also means an amount treated under subsection
(d) as paid for the use of an organization described in
paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
``(c) Disallowance of Deduction in Certain Cases and
Special Rules.--
``(1) Substantiation requirement for certain
contributions.--
``(A) General rule.--No deduction shall be allowed under
subsection (a) for any contribution of $250 or more unless
the taxpayer substantiates the contribution by a
contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by
the donee organization that meets the requirements of
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Content of acknowledgment.--An acknowledgment meets
the requirements of this subparagraph if it includes the
following information:
``(i) The amount of cash contributed.
``(ii) Whether the donee organization provided any goods or
services in consideration, in whole or in part, for any
contribution described in clause (i).
``(iii) A description and good faith estimate of the value
of any goods or services referred to in clause (ii) or, if
such goods or services consist solely of intangible religious
benefits, a statement to that effect.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `intangible
religious benefit' means any intangible religious benefit
which is provided by an organization organized exclusively
for religious purposes and which generally is not sold in a
commercial transaction outside the donative context.
``(C) Contemporaneous.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
an acknowledgment shall be considered to be contemporaneous
if the taxpayer obtains the acknowledgment on or before the
earlier of--
``(i) the date on which the taxpayer files a return for the
taxable year in which the contribution was made, or
``(ii) the due date (including extensions) for filing such
return.
``(D) Substantiation not required for contributions
reported by the donee organization.--Subparagraph (A) shall
not apply to a contribution if the donee organization files a
return, on such form and in accordance with such regulations
as the Secretary may prescribe, which includes the
information described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the
contribution.
``(E) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations that
may provide that some or all of the requirements of this
paragraph do not apply in appropriate cases.
``(2) Denial of deduction where contribution for lobbying
activities.--No deduction shall be allowed under this section
for a contribution to an organization which conducts
activities to which section 11(d)(2)(C)(i) applies on matters
of direct financial interest to the donor's trade or
business, if a principal purpose of the contribution was to
[[Page S5367]]
avoid Federal income tax by securing a deduction for such
activities under this section which would be disallowed by
reason of section 11(d)(2)(C) if the donor had conducted such
activities directly. No deduction shall be allowed under
section 11(d) for any amount for which a deduction is
disallowed under the preceding sentence.
``(d) Amounts Paid To Maintain Certain Students as Members
of Taxpayer's Household.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the limitations provided by
paragraph (2), amounts paid by the taxpayer to maintain an
individual (other than a dependent, as defined in section
5(d), or a relative of the taxpayer) as a member of such
taxpayer's household during the period that such individual
is--
``(A) a member of the taxpayer's household under a written
agreement between the taxpayer and an organization described
in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (b) to implement
a program of the organization to provide educational
opportunities for pupils or students in private homes, and
``(B) a full-time pupil or student in the twelfth or any
lower grade at an educational organization located in the
United States which normally maintains a regular faculty and
curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of
pupils or students in attendance at the place where its
educational activities are regularly carried on,
shall be treated as amounts paid for the use of the
organization.
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) Amount.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to amounts paid
within the taxable year only to the extent that such amounts
do not exceed $50 multiplied by the number of full calendar
months during the taxable year which fall within the period
described in paragraph (1). For purposes of the preceding
sentence, if 15 or more days of a calendar month fall within
such period such month shall be considered as a full calendar
month.
``(B) Compensation or reimbursement.--Paragraph (1) shall
not apply to any amount paid by the taxpayer within the
taxable year if the taxpayer receives any money or other
property as compensation or reimbursement for maintaining the
individual in the taxpayer's household during the period
described in paragraph (1).
``(3) Relative defined.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `relative of the taxpayer' means an individual who, with
respect to the taxpayer, bears any of the relationships
described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section
5(d)(1).
``(4) No other amount allowed as deduction.--No deduction
shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any amount paid by
a taxpayer to maintain an individual as a member of the
taxpayer's household under a program described in paragraph
(1)(A) except as provided in this subsection.
``(e) Denial of Deduction for Certain Travel Expenses.--No
deduction shall be allowed under this section for traveling
expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging)
while away from home, whether paid directly or by
reimbursement, unless there is no significant element of
personal pleasure, recreation, or vacation in such travel.
``(f) Disallowance of Deductions in Certain Cases.--For
disallowance of deductions for contributions to or for the
use of Communist controlled organizations, see section 11(a)
of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 790).
``(g) Treatment of Certain Amounts Paid to or for the
Benefit of Institutions of Higher Education.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, 80 percent
of any amount described in paragraph (2) shall be treated as
a charitable contribution.
``(2) Amount described.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an
amount is described in this paragraph if--
``(A) the amount is paid by the taxpayer to or for the
benefit of an educational organization--
``(i) which is described in subsection (d)(1)(B), and
``(ii) which is an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 3304(f)), and
``(B) such amount would be allowable as a deduction under
this section but for the fact that the taxpayer receives
(directly or indirectly) as a result of paying such amount
the right to purchase tickets for seating at an athletic
event in an athletic stadium of such institution.
If any portion of a payment is for the purchase of such
tickets, such portion and the remaining portion (if any) of
such payment shall be treated as separate amounts for
purposes of this subsection.
``(h) Other Cross References.--
``(1) For treatment of certain organizations providing
child care, see section 501(k).
``(2) For charitable contributions of partners, see section
702.
``(3) For treatment of gifts for benefit of or use in
connection with the Naval Academy as gifts to or for the use
of the United States, see section 6973 of title 10, United
States Code.
``(4) For treatment of gifts accepted by the Secretary of
State, the Director of the International Communication
Agency, or the Director of the United States International
Development Cooperation Agency, as gifts to or for the use of
the United States, see section 25 of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956.
``(5) For treatment of gifts of money accepted by the
Attorney General for credit to the `Commissary Funds, Federal
Prisons' as gifts to or for the use of the United States, see
section 4043 of title 18, United States Code.
``(6) For charitable contributions to or for the use of
Indian tribal governments (or subdivisions of such
governments), see section 7871.
``SEC. 4. DEDUCTION FOR HOME ACQUISITION INDEBTEDNESS.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this part, there shall
be allowed as a deduction all qualified residence interest
paid or accrued within the taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Residence Interest Defined.--The term
`qualified residence interest' means any interest which is
paid or accrued during the taxable year on acquisition
indebtedness with respect to any qualified residence of the
taxpayer. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
determination of whether any property is a qualified
residence of the taxpayer shall be made as of the time the
interest is accrued.
``(c) Acquisition Indebtedness.--
``(1) In general.--The term `acquisition indebtedness'
means any indebtedness which--
``(A) is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or
substantially improving any qualified residence of the
taxpayer, and
``(B) is secured by such residence.
Such term also includes any indebtedness secured by such
residence resulting from the refinancing of indebtedness
meeting the requirements of the preceding sentence (or this
sentence); but only to the extent the amount of the
indebtedness resulting from such refinancing does not exceed
the amount of the refinanced indebtedness.
``(2) $100,000 limitation.--The aggregate amount treated as
acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed
$100,000 ($50,000 in the case of a married individual filing
a separate return).
``(d) Treatment of Indebtedness Incurred on or Before
October 13, 1987.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any pre-October 13, 1987,
indebtedness--
``(A) such indebtedness shall be treated as acquisition
indebtedness, and
``(B) the limitation of subsection (c)(2) shall not apply.
``(2) Reduction in $100,000 limitation.--The limitation of
subsection (c)(2) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by
the aggregate amount of outstanding pre-October 13, 1987,
indebtedness.
``(3) Pre-october 13, 1987, indebtedness.--The term `pre-
October 13, 1987, indebtedness' means--
``(A) any indebtedness which was incurred on or before
October 13, 1987, and which was secured by a qualified
residence on October 13, 1987, and at all times thereafter
before the interest is paid or accrued, or
``(B) any indebtedness which is secured by the qualified
residence and was incurred after October 13, 1987, to
refinance indebtedness described in subparagraph (A) (or
refinanced indebtedness meeting the requirements of this
subparagraph) to the extent (immediately after the
refinancing) the principal amount of the indebtedness
resulting from the refinancing does not exceed the principal
amount of the refinanced indebtedness (immediately before the
refinancing).
``(4) Limitation on period of refinancing.--Subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (3) shall not apply to any indebtedness
after--
``(A) the expiration of the term of the indebtedness
described in paragraph (3)(A), or
``(B) if the principal of the indebtedness described in
paragraph (3)(A) is not amortized over its term, the
expiration of the term of the first refinancing of such
indebtedness (or if earlier, the date which is 30 years after
the date of such first refinancing).
``(e) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Qualified residence.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the term `qualified residence' means the principal residence
of the taxpayer.
``(B) Married individuals filing separate returns.--If a
married couple does not file a joint return for the taxable
year--
``(i) such couple shall be treated as 1 taxpayer for
purposes of subparagraph (A), and
``(ii) each individual shall be entitled to take into
account \1/2\ of the principal residence unless both
individuals consent in writing to 1 individual taking into
account the principal residence.
``(C) Pre-october 13, 1987, indebtedness.--In the case of
any pre-October 13, 1987, indebtedness, the term `qualified
residence' has the meaning given that term in section
163(h)(4), as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this subparagraph.
``(2) Special rule for cooperative housing corporations.--
Any indebtedness secured by stock held by the taxpayer as a
tenant-stockholder in a cooperative housing corporation shall
be treated as secured by the house or apartment which the
taxpayer is entitled to occupy as such a tenant-stockholder.
If stock described in the preceding sentence may not be used
to secure indebtedness, indebtedness shall be treated as so
secured if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of
the Secretary that such indebtedness was incurred to acquire
such stock.
``(3) Unenforceable security interests.--Indebtedness shall
not fail to be treated as secured by any property solely
because, under any applicable State or local homestead or
other debtor protection law in effect on August 16, 1986, the
security interest is ineffective or the enforceability of the
security interest is restricted.
[[Page S5368]]
``(4) Special rules for estates and trusts.--For purposes
of determining whether any interest paid or accrued by an
estate or trust is qualified residence interest, any
residence held by such estate or trust shall be treated as a
qualified residence of such estate or trust if such estate or
trust establishes that such residence is a qualified
residence of a beneficiary who has a present interest in such
estate or trust or an interest in the residuary of such
estate or trust.
``SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.
``(a) Definition of Surviving Spouse.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term
`surviving spouse' means a taxpayer--
``(A) whose spouse died during either of the taxpayer's 2
taxable years immediately preceding the taxable year, and
``(B) who maintains as the taxpayer's home a household
which constitutes for the taxable year the principal place of
abode (as a member of such household) of a dependent--
``(i) who (within the meaning of subsection (d)) is a son,
stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the taxpayer, and
``(ii) with respect to whom the taxpayer is entitled to a
deduction for the taxable year under section 2.
For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be
considered as maintaining a household only if over one-half
of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable
year is furnished by such individual.
``(2) Limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for
purposes of this part a taxpayer shall not be considered to
be a surviving spouse--
``(A) if the taxpayer has remarried at any time before the
close of the taxable year, or
``(B) unless, for the taxpayer's taxable year during which
the taxpayer's spouse died, a joint return could have been
made under the provisions of section 6013 (without regard to
subsection (a)(3) thereof).
``(3) Special rule where deceased spouse was in missing
status.--If an individual was in a missing status (within the
meaning of section 6013(f)(3)) as a result of service in a
combat zone and if such individual remains in such status
until the date referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), then,
for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the date on which such
individual dies shall be treated as the earlier of the date
determined under subparagraph (A) or the date determined
under subparagraph (B):
``(A) The date on which the determination is made under
section 556 of title 37 of the United States Code or under
section 5566 of title 5 of such Code (whichever is
applicable) that such individual died while in such missing
status.
``(B) Except in the case of the combat zone designated for
purposes of the Vietnam conflict, the date which is 2 years
after the date designated as the date of termination of
combatant activities in that zone.
``(b) Definition of Head of Household.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this part, an individual
shall be considered a head of a household if, and only if,
such individual is not married at the close of such
individual's taxable year, is not a surviving spouse (as
defined in subsection (a)), and either--
``(A) maintains as such individual's home a household which
constitutes for more than one-half of such taxable year the
principal place of abode, as a member of such household, of--
``(i) a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the
taxpayer, or a descendant of a son or daughter of the
taxpayer, but if such son, stepson, daughter, stepdaughter,
or descendant is married at the close of the taxpayer's
taxable year, only if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction
for the taxable year for such person under section 2 (or
would be so entitled but for subparagraph (B) or (D) of
subsection (d)(5)), or
``(ii) any other person who is a dependent of the taxpayer,
if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for the taxable
year for such person under section 2, or
``(B) maintains a household which constitutes for such
taxable year the principal place of abode of the father or
mother of the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is entitled to a
deduction for the taxable year for such father or mother
under section 2.
For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be
considered as maintaining a household only if over one-half
of the cost of maintaining the household during the taxable
year is furnished by such individual.
``(2) Determination of status.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) a legally adopted child of a person shall be
considered a child of such person by blood,
``(B) an individual who is legally separated from such
individual's spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate
maintenance shall not be considered as married,
``(C) a taxpayer shall be considered as not married at the
close of such taxpayer's taxable year if at any time during
the taxable year such taxpayer's spouse is a nonresident
alien, and
``(D) a taxpayer shall be considered as married at the
close of such taxpayer's taxable year if such taxpayer's
spouse (other than a spouse described in subparagraph (C))
died during the taxable year.
``(3) Limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for
purposes of this part, a taxpayer shall not be considered to
be a head of a household--
``(A) if at any time during the taxable year the taxpayer
is a nonresident alien, or
``(B) by reason of an individual who would not be a
dependent for the taxable year but for--
``(i) subparagraph (I) of subsection (d)(1), or
``(ii) paragraph (3) of subsection (d).
``(c) Certain Married Individuals Living Apart.--For
purposes of this part, an individual shall be treated as not
married at the close of the taxable year if such individual
is so treated under the provisions of section 7703(b).
``(d) Dependent Defined.--
``(1) General definition.--For purposes of this part, the
term `dependent' means any of the following individuals over
one-half of whose support, for the calendar year in which the
taxable year of the taxpayer begins, was received from the
taxpayer (or is treated under paragraph (3) or (5) as
received from the taxpayer):
``(A) A son or daughter of the taxpayer, or a descendant of
either.
``(B) A stepson or stepdaughter of the taxpayer.
``(C) A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the
taxpayer.
``(D) The father or mother of the taxpayer, or an ancestor
of either.
``(E) A stepfather or stepmother of the taxpayer.
``(F) A son or daughter of a brother or sister of the
taxpayer.
``(G) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the
taxpayer.
``(H) A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-
in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law of the taxpayer.
``(I) An individual (other than an individual who at any
time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined
without regard to section 7703, of the taxpayer) who, for the
taxable year of the taxpayer, has as such individual's
principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a
member of the taxpayer's household.
``(2) Rules relating to general definition.--For purposes
of this section--
``(A) Brother; sister.--The terms `brother' and `sister'
include a brother or sister by the halfblood.
``(B) Child.--In determining whether any of the
relationships specified in paragraph (1) or subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph exists, a legally adopted child of an
individual (and a child who is a member of an individual's
household, if placed with such individual by an authorized
placement agency for legal adoption by such individual), or a
foster child of an individual (if such child satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (1)(I) with respect to such
individual), shall be treated as a child of such individual
by blood.
``(C) Citizenship.--The term `dependent' does not include
any individual who is not a citizen or national of the United
States unless such individual is a resident of the United
States or of a country contiguous to the United States. The
preceding sentence shall not exclude from the definition of
`dependent' any child of the taxpayer legally adopted by such
taxpayer, if, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the child
has as such child's principal place of abode the home of the
taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household, and if
the taxpayer is a citizen or national of the United States.
``(D) Alimony, etc.--A payment to a wife which is alimony
or separate maintenance shall not be treated as a payment by
the wife's husband for the support of any dependent.
``(E) Unlawful arrangements.--An individual is not a member
of the taxpayer's household if at any time during the taxable
year of the taxpayer the relationship between such individual
and the taxpayer is in violation of local law.
``(3) Multiple support agreements.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), over one-half of the support of an individual
for a calendar year shall be treated as received from the
taxpayer if--
``(A) no one person contributed over one-half of such
support,
``(B) over one-half of such support was received from
persons each of whom, but for the fact that such person did
not contribute over one-half of such support, would have been
entitled to claim such individual as a dependent for a
taxable year beginning in such calendar year,
``(C) the taxpayer contributed over 10 percent of such
support, and
``(D) each person described in subparagraph (B) (other than
the taxpayer) who contributed over 10 percent of such support
files a written declaration (in such manner and form as the
Secretary may by regulations prescribe) that such person will
not claim such individual as a dependent for any taxable year
beginning in such calendar year.
``(4) Special support test in case of students.--For
purposes of paragraph (1), in the case of any individual who
is--
``(A) a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter of the
taxpayer (within the meaning of this subsection), and
``(B) a student,
amounts received as scholarships for study at an educational
organization described in section 3(d)(1)(B) shall not be
taken into account in determining whether such individual
received more than one-half of such individual's support from
the taxpayer.
``(5) Support test in case of child of divorced parents,
etc.--
``(A) Custodial parent gets exemption.--Except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph, if--
``(i) a child receives over one-half of such child's
support during the calendar year from such child's parents--
[[Page S5369]]
``(I) who are divorced or legally separated under a decree
of divorce or separate maintenance,
``(II) who are separated under a written separation
agreement, or
``(III) who live apart at all times during the last 6
months of the calendar year, and
``(ii) such child is in the custody of 1 or both of such
child's parents for more than one-half of the calendar year,
such child shall be treated, for purposes of paragraph (1),
as receiving over one-half of such child's support during the
calendar year from the parent having custody for a greater
portion of the calendar year (hereafter in this paragraph
referred to as the `custodial parent').
``(B) Exception where custodial parent releases claim to
exemption for the year.--A child of parents described in
subparagraph (A) shall be treated as having received over
one-half of such child's support during a calendar year from
the noncustodial parent if--
``(i) the custodial parent signs a written declaration (in
such manner and form as the Secretary may by regulations
prescribe) that such custodial parent will not claim such
child as a dependent for any taxable year beginning in such
calendar year, and
``(ii) the noncustodial parent attaches such written
declaration to the noncustodial parent's return for the
taxable year beginning during such calendar year.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `noncustodial
parent' means the parent who is not the custodial parent.
``(C) Exception for multiple-support agreement.--This
paragraph shall not apply in any case where over one-half of
the support of the child is treated as having been received
from a taxpayer under the provisions of paragraph (3).
``(D) Exception for certain pre-1985 instruments.--
``(i) In general.--A child of parents described in
subparagraph (A) shall be treated as having received over
one-half such child's support during a calendar year from the
noncustodial parent if--
``(I) a qualified pre-1985 instrument between the parents
applicable to the taxable year beginning in such calendar
year provides that the noncustodial parent shall be entitled
to any deduction allowable under section 2 for such child,
and
``(II) the noncustodial parent provides at least $600 for
the support of such child during such calendar year.
For purposes of this clause, amounts expended for the support
of a child or children shall be treated as received from the
noncustodial parent to the extent that such parent provided
amounts for such support.
``(ii) Qualified pre-1985 instrument.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `qualified pre-1985 instrument' means
any decree of divorce or separate maintenance or written
agreement--
``(I) which is executed before January 1, 1985,
``(II) which on such date contains the provision described
in clause (i)(I), and
``(III) which is not modified on or after such date in a
modification which expressly provides that this subparagraph
shall not apply to such decree or agreement.
``(E) Special rule for support received from new spouse of
parent.--For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of the
remarriage of a parent, support of a child received from the
parent's spouse shall be treated as received from the parent.
``PART II--TAX ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
``Sec. 11. Tax imposed on business activities.
``SEC. 11. TAX IMPOSED ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.
``(a) Tax Imposed.--There is hereby imposed on every person
engaged in a business activity located in the United States a
tax equal to 20 percent of the business taxable income of
such person.
``(b) Liability for Tax.--The tax imposed by this section
shall be paid by the person engaged in the business activity,
whether such person is an individual, partnership,
corporation, or otherwise.
``(c) Business Taxable Income.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`business taxable income' means gross active income reduced
by the deductions specified in subsection (d).
``(2) Gross active income.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the term `gross active income' means gross income other than
investment income.
``(d) Deductions.--
``(1) In general.--The deductions specified in this
subsection are--
``(A) the cost of business inputs for the business
activity,
``(B) the compensation (including contributions to
qualified retirement plans but not including other fringe
benefits) paid for employees performing services in such
activity, and
``(C) the cost of personal and real property used in such
activity.
``(2) Business inputs.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the
term `cost of business inputs' means--
``(i) the actual cost of goods, services, and materials,
whether or not resold during the taxable year, and
``(ii) the actual cost, if reasonable, of travel and
entertainment expenses for business purposes.
``(B) Purchases of goods and services excluded.--Such term
shall not include purchases of goods and services provided to
employees or owners.
``(C) Certain lobbying and political expenditures
excluded.--
``(i) In general.--Such term shall not include any amount
paid or incurred in connection with--
``(I) influencing legislation,
``(II) participation in, or intervention in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
public office,
``(III) any attempt to influence the general public, or
segments thereof, with respect to elections, legislative
matters, or referendums, or
``(IV) any direct communication with a covered executive
branch official in an attempt to influence the official
actions or positions of such official.
``(ii) Exception for local legislation.--In the case of any
legislation of any local council or similar governing body--
``(I) clause (i)(I) shall not apply, and
``(II) such term shall include all ordinary and necessary
expenses (including, but not limited to, traveling expenses
described in subparagraph (A)(iii) and the cost of preparing
testimony) paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on any trade or business--
``(aa) in direct connection with appearances before,
submission of statements to, or sending communications to the
committees, or individual members, of such council or body
with respect to legislation or proposed legislation of direct
interest to the taxpayer, or
``(bb) in direct connection with communication of
information between the taxpayer and an organization of which
the taxpayer is a member with respect to any such legislation
or proposed legislation which is of direct interest to the
taxpayer and to such organization, and that portion of the
dues so paid or incurred with respect to any organization of
which the taxpayer is a member which is attributable to the
expenses of the activities carried on by such organization.
``(iii) Application to dues of tax-exempt organizations.--
Such term shall include the portion of dues or other similar
amounts paid by the taxpayer to an organization which is
exempt from tax under this subtitle which the organization
notifies the taxpayer under section 6033(e)(1)(A)(ii) is
allocable to expenditures to which clause (i) applies.
``(iv) Influencing legislation.--For purposes of this
subparagraph--
``(I) In general.--The term `influencing legislation' means
any attempt to influence any legislation through
communication with any member or employee of a legislative
body, or with any government official or employee who may
participate in the formulation of legislation.
``(II) Legislation.--The term `legislation' has the meaning
given that term in section 4911(e)(2).
``(v) Other special rules.--
``(I) Exception for certain taxpayers.--In the case of any
taxpayer engaged in the trade or business of conducting
activities described in clause (i), clause (i) shall not
apply to expenditures of the taxpayer in conducting such
activities directly on behalf of another person (but shall
apply to payments by such other person to the taxpayer for
conducting such activities).
``(II) De minimis exception.--
``(aa) In general.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any in-
house expenditures for any taxable year if such expenditures
do not exceed $2,000. In determining whether a taxpayer
exceeds the $2,000 limit, there shall not be taken into
account overhead costs otherwise allocable to activities
described in subclauses (I) and (IV) of clause (i).
``(bb) In-house expenditures.--For purposes of provision
(aa), the term `in-house expenditures' means expenditures
described in subclauses (I) and (IV) of clause (i) other than
payments by the taxpayer to a person engaged in the trade or
business of conducting activities described in clause (i) for
the conduct of such activities on behalf of the taxpayer, or
dues or other similar amounts paid or incurred by the
taxpayer which are allocable to activities described in
clause (i).
``(III) Expenses incurred in connection with lobbying and
political activities.--Any amount paid or incurred for
research for, or preparation, planning, or coordination of,
any activity described in clause (i) shall be treated as paid
or incurred in connection with such activity.
``(vi) Covered executive branch official.--For purposes of
this subparagraph, the term `covered executive branch
official' means--
``(I) the President,
``(II) the Vice President,
``(III) any officer or employee of the White House Office
of the Executive Office of the President, and the 2 most
senior level officers of each of the other agencies in such
Executive Office, and
``(IV) any individual serving in a position in level I of
the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5, United
States Code, any other individual designated by the President
as having Cabinet level status, and any immediate deputy of
such an individual.
``(vii) Special rule for indian tribal governments.--For
purposes of this subparagraph, an Indian tribal government
shall be treated in the same manner as a local council or
similar governing body.
``(viii) Cross Reference.--
``For reporting requirements and alternative taxes related to this
subsection, see section 6033(e).
[[Page S5370]]
``(e) Carryover of Excess Deductions.--
``(1) In general.--If the aggregate deductions for any
taxable year exceed the gross active income for such taxable
year, the amount of the deductions specified in subsection
(d) for the succeeding taxable year (determined without
regard to this subsection) shall be increased by the sum of--
``(A) such excess, plus
``(B) the product of such excess and the 3-month Treasury
rate for the last month of such taxable year.
``(2) 3-month treasury rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the 3-month Treasury rate is the rate determined by the
Secretary based on the average market yield (during any 1-
month period selected by the Secretary and ending in the
calendar month in which the determination is made) on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with
remaining periods to maturity of 3 months or less.''
(b) Conforming Repeals and Redesignations.--
(1) Repeals.--The following subchapters of chapter 1 of
subtitle A and the items relating to such subchapters in the
table of subchapters for such chapter 1 are repealed:
(A) Subchapter B (relating to computation of taxable
income).
(B) Subchapter C (relating to corporate distributions and
adjustments).
(C) Subchapter D (relating to deferred compensation, etc.).
(D) Subchapter G (relating to corporations used to avoid
income tax on shareholders).
(E) Subchapter H (relating to banking institutions).
(F) Subchapter I (relating to natural resources).
(G) Subchapter J (relating to estates, trusts,
beneficiaries, and decedents).
(H) Subchapter L (relating to insurance companies).
(I) Subchapter M (relating to regulated investment
companies and real estate investment trusts).
(J) Subchapter N (relating to tax based on income from
sources within or without the United States).
(K) Subchapter O (relating to gain or loss on disposition
of property).
(L) Subchapter P (relating to capital gains and losses).
(M) Subchapter Q (relating to readjustment of tax between
years and special limitations).
(N) Subchapter S (relating to tax treatment of S
corporations and their shareholders).
(O) Subchapter T (relating to cooperatives and their
patrons).
(P) Subchapter U (relating to designation and treatment of
empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and rural
development investment areas).
(Q) Subchapter V (relating to title 11 cases).
(R) Subchapter W (relating to District of Columbia
Enterprise Zone).
(2) Redesignations.--The following subchapters of chapter 1
of subtitle A and the items relating to such subchapters in
the table of subchapters for such chapter 1 are redesignated:
(A) Subchapter E (relating to accounting periods and
methods of accounting) as subchapter B.
(B) Subchapter F (relating to exempt organizations) as
subchapter C.
(C) Subchapter K (relating to partners and partnerships) as
subchapter D.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.
Subtitle B (relating to estate, gift, and generation-
skipping taxes) and the item relating to such subtitle in the
table of subtitles is repealed.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.
Subtitles H (relating to financing of presidential election
campaigns) and J (relating to coal industry health benefits)
and the items relating to such subtitles in the table of
subtitles are repealed.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendments made by this Act apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2003.
(b) Repeal of Estate and Gift Taxes.--The repeal made by
section 3 applies to estates of decedents dying, and
transfers made, after December 31, 2003.
(c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the
Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall, as soon as
practicable but in any event not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any technical
and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code the
changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this
Act.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Santorum, and Mr.
Conrad):
S. 908. A bill to establish the United States Consensus Council to
provide for a consensus building process in addressing national public
policy issues, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that
would create a United States Consensus Council. Designed to facilitate
a consensus building process on important national issues, the U.S.
Consensus Council is modeled upon similar entities that have operated
successfully in several States. The council would be a nonprofit,
private entity that would serve both the legislative and executive
branches of government. Its role would be to build agreements among
stakeholders on public policy issues where there are diverse and
conflicting views and bring these agreements back to Congress or other
decision-makers for action.
A good example of such a consensus council is the Montana Consensus
Council. Established in 1994, this council has helped to facilities
agreements on a range of contentious public issues. The Council, for
example, facilitated development of a plan for the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites that was overwhelmingly approved by the State legislature.
It also helped mediate a dispute between recreationists and ranchers
over water rights and, with the input of key stakeholders, an agreement
was successfully reached.
The North Dakota Consensus Council, created in 1990, has helped build
agreements on numerous local and State issues, including facilitating a
five year effort to develop a strategic plan for the future of North
Dakota and an economic development strategy to implement that plan.
The U.S. Consensus Council Act was introduced in the last Congress by
Senator Dorgan and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. The
Committee on Governmental Affairs favorably reported the bill last
fall, but the full Senate did not have an opportunity to act on it
before adjournment. I am pleased that Senator Dorgan, along with
Senators Santorum and Conrad, have joined me in reintroducing the
legislation today.
The legislation would establish the U.S. Consensus Council as an
independent nonprofit corporation under the District of Columbia
Nonprofit Corporation Act. The Council would not be an agency or
instrumentality of the United States. The Council's role would be to
design and conduct processes that bring together key stakeholders and
build agreements on complex public policy issues. The resulting
recommendations would be advisory, subject to the normal legislative or
regulatory processes.
The Council's powers would be vested in a 12-member part-time Board
of Directors. Each of the leaders of the majority and minority in the
House of Representatives and the Senate would appoint two board
members, and the President would appoint four members. Members of the
Board cannot be Federal officers or employees.
A President, selected by the Board, would be the chief executive
officer of the Council.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, today I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Collins, in introducing legislation that would create the
United States Consensus Council. This council would be a nonprofit,
quasi-governmental entity. Its role would be to build agreements among
stakeholders on legislative issues where there are diverse and
conflicting views and bring these agreements back to Congress or other
decisionmakers for action.
We all talk about the benefit of working across party lines to
develop consensus on a variety of policy issues. This bill would help
to institutionalize this goal and provide ongoing support to Congress
by bringing stakeholders to the table to resolve a wide range of
difficult national issues.
The North Dakota Consensus Council in my home State serves as a model
for this national proposal. In North Dakota, the Consensus Council has
helped to find common ground on the use of grasslands in the western
part of the State, the structure of judgeships across the State, and
flood mitigation efforts in the Red River Valley. By bringing together
all of the interested parties, the North Dakota Consensus Council was
able to find solutions to problems that had previously seemed
insurmountable. Washington, DC, is ripe with opportunity for the same
kind of consensus building and mediation. We can not only build on the
experience of consensus building in North Dakota, but similar successes
in Montana, Florida, Oregon, and many other States.
The United States Consensus Council would bring people together and
then
[[Page S5371]]
help to develop recommendations. These recommendations would be
advisory and would not circumvent any of the normal legislative
requirements or processes. The board of directors would be appointed by
the President and the bipartisan congressional leadership. The council
would remain neutral on substantive policy matters.
The council would focus on issues that are contentious or deadlocked,
or they could be emerging issues where mediation could help to prevent
later polarization.
The council's role will be to design and conduct processes that lead
to common ground on effective public policy for a particular issue. The
council could be called upon to convene key stakeholders in face-to-
face meetings over time to build agreements on complex issues.
I have long been a supporter of building consensus and finding ways
to reach compromise. I believe that this legislation could help the
Congress and the administration to find that middle ground. There are
so many important issues that get deadlocked in Washington, and this
approach will help to break that logjam. I look forward to working with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this bill through the
process.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 909. A bill to provide State and local governments with
flexibility in using funds made available for homeland security
activities; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will provide State and local governments the flexibility they need
for preparedness activities associated with the planning, procurement
and training for homeland security and counter terrorism activities.
Quite simply, this legislation would permit State and local
governments to use up to twenty percent of any funds provided for the
procurement of new equipment to train first responders in the use of
that equipment and secondly, allow State level Emergency Management
personnel to conduct activities such as FEMA related strategic planning
on behalf of smaller communities that may not otherwise have the
resources to adequately perform that planning.
I became acutely aware of this need when I visited the Maine
Emergency Management Agency and learned that, although they had been
provided the funds to purchase new chemical and biological protection
equipment, they had not received any funds to train personnel to use
that equipment.
As we are all aware, homeland security needs at the State level vary
widely. From State to State, there are varying degrees of risk, varying
percentages of full-time versus volunteer responders, and different
areas of strengths and weaknesses in the responder community. Any
successful Federal program that seeks to improve response capability
must therefore have flexible rules for implementation.
For example, in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FEMA funded states
for terrorism preparedness activities. The State of Maine received
$246,000 annually for these activities and the funds were administered
through the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Those funds were
based on a strategic plan submitted by each State that outlined its
most urgent needs, and the steps to be taken to meet those needs. If
planning was the need, the State could put an emphasis on planning. If
training or exercise was the need, they could stress that.
While there was no set quota for how much money had to go to local
communities, States were required to track performance measures that
showed how local communities were benefitting because in rural States
such as Maine, it is often more efficient and cost-effective for States
to sponsor programs for the benefit of local officials, rather than
providing funds to communities that may not have the organizational
infrastructure to plan and execute programs.
States were given wide authority to reimburse communities for time
and equipment costs, purchase training materials, and contract for
services--whatever was necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of
improved preparedness for responders. These dollars could also support
basic emergency management activities, such as incident command
training, emergency planning or exercise design, which supported the
communities' overall all-hazard preparedness as well as their
capability to react to a terrorist incident.
By contrast, let's go back and look at FEMA's FY2002 Supplemental
Budget and the Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for emergency
response equipment for it was during this cycle that the previous
flexibility began to be restricted. First, while the FEMA FY2002
Supplemental Budget supported emergency operations planning, Citizen
Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and emergency
operations center assessment and improvement, 75 percent of the funding
for planning and for Citizen Corps and CERT efforts was required to be
passed through to local communities, even if the capacity to administer
those funds was generally lacking and the communities would have been
better served by programs brought to them by the state.
In addition, planning dollars could not be spent on exercises to test
plans, or training to support those plans. Funds for Citizen Corps and
CERT programs, which are voluntary efforts, could not be used for any
other preparedness purpose, even if no communities came forward
desiring to participate in those programs. It is likely that Maine will
return a portion of these funds because the local need for them does
not exist. Furthermore, emergency operations center assessment funds
could only be spent on assessment, even if a current assessment of
facilities was in place.
The Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for the procurement of
equipment has been equally restrictive. The lion's share is of course
for equipment, and only equipment that provides protection, detection,
decontamination and communications could be procured.
Beyond the fact that it took two rounds of funding to build a
critical mass of resources such that equipment purchases could begin in
earnest, much of this equipment is highly technical in nature, and
requires extensive training to operate safely and properly. However, of
the funds provided for that equipment, none could be used for training.
While there were some exercise funds, they were specifically targeted
to weapons of mass destruction. With the FY2003 allocation, some
funding has been allocated for training, which is a positive step but,
again, it comes with very strict limits and dollars allocated for
exercise cannot be used for training, or vice versa.
In the emergency management world, planning comes first, then
training, then exercise.
If you need a plan, you can't substitute an exercise and get the same
result. If you need an exercise, you can't substitute training. Even
within the training and exercise grants, there are restrictions that
make it extremely difficult for full-time departments, for example, to
free up employee time to take needed training or participate in
exercises. And with the focus on homeland security, the need for
flexibility to improve basic response capability has also been
overlooked. In communities that do not have the resources to create
special response forces for every hazard--and that includes all towns
in Maine--it is imperative to be able to build a base of planning and
training for all hazards, on which one can build the capability to
respond to a terrorist incident.
Our strategy in Maine has been to build a regional response
capability. In some areas we could build that capability around
existing response capacity, and in others we have had to build
capability from the ground up.
For example, the Portland and South Portland fire departments have
formed a regional response team and are undertaking training required
to stand up a fully qualified hazardous materials response team. This
entails 80 hours of training for each individual. But, I'm told the
City of Portland is in the process of cutting 20 fire positions and
some police officers because of budget constraints at the local level,
as they are facing additional security requirements around the city.
This makes it very difficult to free up responders for the required
training, especially as there are no budget dollars for overtime, and
no Federal grant currently
[[Page S5372]]
available will reimburse training costs to include overtime.
In other parts of the State, private paper companies have stepped up
and volunteered their already-trained hazardous materials teams to
respond off site. During the anthrax scare in the fall of 2001, these
teams responded to any and all ``suspicious package'' calls, at a cost
of $2,000 per hour to field a team of 22 people.
These companies have responded out of patriotism and a sense of civic
responsibility, and despite challenging economic times in the paper
industry. These teams are now faced with maintaining the full ``level
A'' capability and further facing more than 20 hours of additional
training to be fully WMD compliant. No grant monies currently available
allow reimbursement for their response or for their training time.
In Maine, we have by necessity been flexible in our approach to each
region, looking at the different needs in planning, training, exercise
and equipment procurement. However, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to practice flexibility when the Federal programs that
provide the resources to build capability are becoming more and more
rigid.
The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks
have brought our Nation to heightened level of awareness. Nowhere is
this more evident than in Maine's hospitals, upon which we rely to
respond quickly and effectively in the event of any disaster affecting
our residents' health.
While hospitals have always had disaster plans in place, recent
events have dramatically changed the definition of ``disaster''. Since
September 11, 2001, hospitals have stepped up their readiness efforts
to be better prepared in responding not only to conventional disasters,
but also to the more concrete threat of previously unimaginable
terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or radiologic agents that
could lead to large-scale emergencies with mass casualties.
Hospitals have to change their mind-set on established norms and
standard ways of operating to embrace a broader spectrum of roles and
responsibilities. The relationship between traditional first responders
and the non-traditional role of hospitals in community-wide first
response overall is moving closer, emphasizing the need for
collaboration and compatibility.
No one doubts that in the event of a weapons of mass destruction
event, hospitals are likely to see large numbers of potentially
contaminated patients seeking treatment. The reality is that hospital
emergency department staff and hospital providers in general are truly
the new ``first responders.'' Hospitals are critical elements of the
community response system and if they are not prepared and protected,
there will be serious gaps in the system that could cause it to break
down completely.
One of the largest barriers to optimal emergency preparedness is
staff education and training. To date, hospitals have had to absorb all
these costs, as the limited funding assistance available to hospitals
has not been permitted to be spent on education and training. The full
costs of providing training is daunting, particularly in these lean
economic times of declining reimbursement to hospitals.
The costs of the courses and/or instructors' fees pale in comparison
to the staff time that must be paid to attend any given course. Staff
time must essentially be paid twice--first to pay the staff person's
on-duty time to attend the course or drill, and once again to pay
another staff person's time to replace the worker being trained. The
cost of staff time is significant, and even finding staff to replace
the one attending training is especially costly due to the nursing
shortage in hospitals. Consider the following facts: The vacancy rate
for hospital staff nurses in Maine has been 8-9 percent. The average
hourly rate for registered nurses in Maine is $21.67, and rising. Any
staff training must be done on a large scale so that trained staff are
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
As just one example of training needed, Maine recognizes that
hospitals need to be prepared to manage contaminated patients who come
to their facility. The Maine Emergency Management Agency is working to
provide hospitals with the necessary equipment, but the training
necessary to competently use that equipment is extensive and currently
underfunded.
According to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations, staff must be trained to the hazardous material
``operations'' level in order to safely use the equipment. Meeting
Federal Government standards for that level of training requires at
least two full days of initial training, with refresher courses
required annually. Conservatively speaking, if 35 Maine hospitals train
25 nurses to that level, the approximate cost of nursing staff time
alone for the initial course would be $606,760. And remember, because
six to eight staff members are required to man the decontamination
line, the nursing costs are just the beginning.
The same staffing costs apply to sending staff to local and regional
emergency drills and training sessions--which are absolutely critical
components of Maine's disaster readiness. It is simply not possible for
hospitals to absorb all of these costs, given the declining
reimbursements. Hospital operating margins in Maine declined from an
average of 2.3 percent in 2001 to 1.7 percent in 2002 and about one
third of all Maine hospitals experienced zero or negative operating
margins in 2002.
Yet, our hospitals continue their efforts to provide the best
possible patient care while simultaneously increasing their level of
emergency preparedness. Federal assistance with training funding would
provide excellent support for hospitals, as they work to respond to any
crisis and protect their staff so they can perform the critical
functions of caring for the citizens of Maine in any crisis.
These are but a few examples of the burdens being experienced by
State, local and private industry responders as they struggle to
prepare themselves and the citizenry to prevent and respond to
terrorist attacks and other crises. This legislation will provide some
of the flexibility emergency management personnel require to be truly
prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 910. A bill to ensure the continuation of non-homeland security
functions of Federal agencies transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
preserve important non-homeland security missions in the Department of
Homeland Security. I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from
Delaware, Senator Carper, and the Senator from New Jersey, Senator
Lautenberg, in this effort to guarantee the fulfillment of non-homeland
security functions Americans rely on daily.
Many of these non-homeland security functions are especially
important to the State of Hawaii. The Coast Guard provides essential
search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and protection of our
coastline. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service protects the
State's fragile ecosystem from invasive species. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency assists municipalities in reducing the destructive
effects of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tidal
waves.
To preserve these vital functions, the ``Non-Homeland Security
Mission Performance Act of 2003'' would require the Department of
Homeland Security to identify and report to Congress on the resources,
personnel, and capabilities used to perform non-homeland security
functions, as well as the management strategy needed to carry out these
missions.
The measure would require the Department to include information on
the performance of these functions in its annual performance report.
Our legislation also calls for a General Accounting Office, GAO,
evaluation of the performance of essential non-homeland security
missions.
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security created
additional management challenges and has fueled growing concerns that
the performance of core, non-homeland security functions will slip
through the cracks. Just last week, the GAO testified before the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that
[[Page S5373]]
the Coast Guard has experienced a substantial decline in the amount of
time spent on core missions. Moreover, GAO found that the Coast Guard
lacks the resources to reverse this trend. Coast Guard Commandant
Thomas H. Collins is quoted as saying that his agency has more business
than it has resources and is challenged like never before to do all
that America wants it to do.
These same concerns extend to the entire Department of Homeland
Security. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration services provides asylum for refugees and helps
immigrants become American citizens. The Customs Service protects and
monitors foreign trade so essential for a healthy American economy. And
the Secret Service protects and monitors against identity theft,
counterfeiting, and other financial crimes.
In fact, the General Accounting Office has added the transformation
of and implementation of the Department to the GAO High Risk list,
partially as the result of existing management challenges to fulfill
non-homeland security missions.
The cost of creating a Department of Homeland Security should not
come at the expense of these essential missions. Agencies should strike
the proper balance between new homeland security responsibilities and
their critical non-homeland security missions. Enhancing traditional
missions also enhances domestic security which depends on sound
management strategies that ensure adequate resources and personnel.
I urge my colleagues to support the ``Non-Homeland Security Mission
Performance Act of 2003.'' Our bill takes important steps to ensure
that Americans will not see a decline in non-homeland security services
as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
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. 910
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 ``Non-Homeland Security
Mission Performance Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Federal agencies included in the Department of Homeland
Security perform important non-homeland security functions on
which all United States citizens rely, such as the protection
of fisheries and agriculture, communication and
transportation infrastructures, and medical supplies.
(2) Federal agencies included in the Department shall
ensure the continuation of non-homeland security functions as
new homeland security responsibilities are adopted.
(3) A strategy to address non-homeland security functions
is needed to meet the daily needs of Americans and to
preserve the security of the Nation.
(4) Non-homeland security functions are complementary to
homeland security functions and often share personnel,
resources, and assets. It is appropriate for each Under
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure
that non-homeland security functions are performed.
(5) Agencies in the Department of Homeland Security perform
essential non-homeland security functions Americans rely on
everyday, including the following:
(A) The United States Coast Guard has vital non-homeland
security functions, including search and rescue, fisheries
enforcement, law enforcement, marine safety, and aids to
navigation.
(B) The Department of Homeland Security Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services provides important
immigration and citizenship services and benefits including
processing and approving requests for citizenship,
adjudicating asylum for refugees, and immigration benefits,
such as refugee and intercountry adoptions.
(C) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assists
local communities to prepare for and respond to floods,
hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, and other natural
disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
supplements State and local responses to natural disasters
and the mitigation of damage, and prevention of disasters,
such as earthquakes.
(D) The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the
Animal Research Service develop strategies to prevent and
control foreign or emerging animal and plant disease
epidemics vital to farmers, the economy, and the protection
of the environment.
(E) The Secret Service is charged with safeguarding payment
and financial systems by protecting against counterfeiting,
identity theft, credit card fraud, cell phone fraud, computer
and telecommunications fraud, money laundering, and other
financial crimes.
(F) The United States Customs Service protects our free
trade essential for a healthy economy by working to lower the
cost of trade compliance, providing guidance on the conduct
of legal trade, and monitoring imports to ensure compliance
with public health and safety laws. Customs protects
intellectual property and combats money laundering, child
pornography, and drug trafficking.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) ensure the continuation of non-homeland security
functions of Federal agencies; and
(2) ensure that Federal agencies develop sound management
strategies and allocate sufficient funding to carry out non-
homeland security functions.
SEC. 3. NON-HOMELAND SECURITY FUNCTIONS PERFORMANCE.
(a) In General.--For each entity in the Department of
Homeland Security that performs non-homeland security
functions, the Under Secretary with responsibility for that
entity, in conjunction with the head of that entity, shall
submit a report on the performance of the entity and all the
functions of that entity, with a particular emphasis on
examining the continuing level of performance of non-homeland
security functions to--
(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(2) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(4) the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives;
(5) the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives; and
(6) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Contents.--The report referred to under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) to the greatest extent possible, provide an inventory
of the non-homeland security functions of the entity and
identify the capabilities of the entity with respect to those
functions, including--
(A) the number of employees carrying out those functions;
(B) the budget for those functions; and
(C) the flexibilities, personnel or otherwise, used to
carry out those functions;
(2) contain information relating to the roles,
responsibilities, organizational structure, capabilities,
personnel assets, and annual budgets, specifically with
respect to the capabilities of the entity to accomplish non-
homeland security functions without any diminishment;
(3) contain information relating to whether any changes are
required to the roles, responsibilities, functions,
organizational structure, modernization programs, projects,
activities, recruitment and retention programs, and annual
fiscal resources to enable the entity to accomplish non-
homeland security functions without diminishment; and
(4) contain the strategy the Department will use for the
performance of non-homeland security functions and homeland
security functions.
(c) Submission of Reports.--During the 5-year period
following the date of the transfer of an entity that performs
non-homeland security functions to the Department of Homeland
Security or the date of the establishment of an entity that
performs non-homeland security functions within the
Department of Homeland Security, the Under Secretary with
responsibility for that entity shall submit an annual report
described under subsection (a).
(d) Annual Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of this
section.
(2) Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and every year during the succeeding 5-
year period, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit a report to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives containing--
(A) an evaluation of the implementation progress reports
submitted under this section;
(B) the findings and conclusions of the Comptroller General
of the United States resulting from the monitoring and
evaluation conducted under this subsection, including
evaluations of how successfully the Department of Homeland
Security is meeting the non-homeland security functions of
the Department; and
(C) any recommendations for legislation or administrative
action the Comptroller General of the United States considers
appropriate.
(e) Performance Reports.--In performance reports submitted
under section 1116 of title 31, United States Code, the
Department of Homeland Security shall--
(1) clarify homeland security and non-homeland security
function performance; and
(2) fully describe and evaluate the performance of homeland
and non-homeland security functions and goals to Congress.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 911. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a rebate of up to $765 to individuals for
[[Page S5374]]
payroll taxes paid in 2001, to provide employers with an income tax
credit of up to $765 for payroll taxes paid during the payroll tax
holiday period, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are living in difficult economic
times. Too many people are out of work and the economy is not growing
enough to put them back to work permanently. The March unemployment
rate was 5.8 percent and it has been holding around this mark for about
a year. More bad news came just last week when the number of jobless
claims soared to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That is the
highest number of weekly claims for unemployment benefits in almost a
year.
While unemployment has been rising, other economic indicators are
dropping. New orders for manufactured goods in February decreased $4.9
billion or 1.5 percent; shipments also fell 1.5 percent, the largest
decrease since February of last year.
These cold, hard numbers cannot measure the unease and uncertainty
many Americans feel today. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence
Index fell 2 more points in March after a 3 point drop in February.
When your neighbor is out of work and cannot find a job, you worry that
you might be next. So you hold off on buying that new washing machine,
the new car you need to get to work, or you put that dream vacation on
hold. Americans have experienced losses in their pensions and 401(k)
plans. When you combine all of this with the uncertainty surrounding
the war against terrorism and the war with Iraq, you create a great
drag on the economy.
I think all of my colleagues agree that the economy is not where we
want it to be right now. We agree that it needs a booster shot. We have
partisan disagreement over specifics and the size of the stimulus. But
if we put aside our partisan differences, I believe we can come up with
a bipartisan solution to help the economy in the short term.
We can accomplish this if we agree on a few, narrow principles for an
economic stimulus plan. First, we should aim toward providing an
immediate boost to the economy. We do not need tax cuts that will only
begin to help several years downs the road. The economy needs help
today. Second, the urgent need for the boost today means that the
economic stimulus plan must be simple and easy to administer so that
full effects can be felt right away. Third, I believe that a stimulus
plan must be fiscally responsible. While the economy needs a boost
today, that boost should not come at the expense of our ability to meet
our needs tomorrow. And finally, the stimulus package must be
equitable. It must be fair. It should touch all Americans, not just a
select few.
Today, along with my colleague Senator Corzine, I am introducing one
idea for economic stimulus that meets all of these principles. We
propose that all working Americans receive tax relief equivalent to the
amount of payroll taxes paid on the first $10,000 of earnings--a total
of $765. The rebate would be made in two installments. The first would
come within 2 months of passage of the bill and the second would come
by December 1st of this year. Employers would also receive an
equivalent tax credit for their employees.
This plan meets the principles I have outlined. It is a short-term
plan that will put spending money in the hands of working Americans. It
will be simple to administer--rebate checks were a part of the tax cut
we passed in 2001. The plan is fiscally responsible: the rebate checks
will be paid out of general revenues and not from the Social Security
trust fund. Finally, this plan is fair. Every working American will
benefit.
Mr. President, I hope the Congress will act quickly to revive our
economy. Today, Senator Corzine and I are putting one idea forward. My
colleagues have a variety of other ideas that they will put forward.
The Senate should look at each and put together a final package that is
simple, immediate, fair, and fiscally responsible.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Landrieu
in introducing the Wage Tax Cut Act, legislation that would provide an
immediate boost to America's economy by providing wage tax relief to
all working Americans and to businesses.
In short, this proposal would give all working Americans a wage tax
break of up to $765, equivalent to the payroll taxes they have paid on
the first $10,000 of their earnings in the year 2001. Working couples
would receive tax relief of up to $1,530. This is a 1-year proposal in
which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General
Treasury. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be
affected in any way.
Every working American and business-owner would benefit from our
proposal. This $765 tax cut would help American families make ends meet
and stimulate the economy. It would pay for 5 week's worth of groceries
for a family of four; more than 2 months of child care; 3\1/2\ months
of utility bills; and 7 months of gasoline.
The act would provide business-owners--small and large--a tax credit
for up to $765 on the wages of each of their employees. The tax credit
for businessowners would put more money in the hands of employers to
spur investment in new people, plant, and equipment. By reducing
payroll taxes, which amount to a tax on labor, we would encourage more
employers to hire new personnel, and to keep those they now have.
That is why the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the
country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, has
endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief that we are proposing
today.
This is a simple, fair, and affordable economic stimulus plan that
will get money in the hands of consumers and businesses that will be
immediately reinvested in our economy.
Unlike the President's proposed tax plan, the Wage Tax Cut Act would
provide immediate help to the economy, without being fiscally
irresponsible. At $180 billion, its cost is only about 15 percent of
the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts included in the conference report on the
budget resolution.
At this important time in our Nation's history, when thousands of
young men and women are bravely serving their country, we need to
ensure that the America to which they return is vibrant and strong.
This proposal would help create the jobs they need, and the prosperity
they deserve.
In December 2001, when Senator Bill Frist supported--in fact his own
Web site articulated--the stimulative impact that payroll tax relief
could have. It quoted the senator as saying:
A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax
cut that would be welcome news for most Americans, especially
during the holiday season. As economic growth stagnates and
unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in
consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost.
Senator Frist continued:
The key is for Congress to respond and pass a stimulus bill
now, and I believe that this proposal could provide us with a
bipartisan solution.
Senator Frist was right on the mark about the need, and stimulative
impact, of payroll tax relief then. It is my hope that Majority Leader
Frist, and the rest of my colleagues, today will stand behind those
words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate out economy.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Hatch):
S. 914. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply
look-thru rules for purposes of the foreign tax credit limitation to
dividends from foreign corporations not controlled by a domestic
corporation; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President I rise today to introduce legislation to
simplify an unnecessarily complex portion of the tax code that serves
as an impediment to U.S. businesses attempting to compete in foreign
markets. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friends and
colleagues Sens. Breaux and Hatch. The Foreign Tax Credit, FTC, was
designed to ensure that U.S. corporations were not subject to double
taxation on foreign income. A number of limitations were placed on
these credits in order to guard against attempts to reduce U.S. taxes
on income earned here. Consequently, income earned abroad is sorted
into separate ``baskets'' based on how the income is earned, also known
as ``look-through'' treatment.
[[Page S5375]]
Unfortunately, income from certain corporate joint ventures has not
always been afforded look-through treatment. In the past, income from a
10/50 company, a U.S. firm has substantial ownership, at least 10
percent but not a controlling interest 50 percent, was subject to
different tax treatment. In 1997, Congress attempted to address
disparity with legislation affording look-through treatment for
dividends paid by 10/50 companies. However, the bill included vague
transition rules that were complex and expensive for U.S. companies.
Our bill would resolve these transition issues by restoring parity in
the tax treatment of joint-venture income to other income earned
overseas by U.S. companies. Everyone, from the Joint Committee on
Taxation in the 2001 simplification study to the Clinton Administration
in its budget documents, has called for simplification in this area.
Legal and political realities in foreign markets often necessitate
the use of corporate joint ventures with local firms. U.S.
international tax rules should not penalize companies with overly
complicated and costly limitations purely because they choose or are
forced to do business in a certain form. The 10/50 transition rules
didn't allow the full use of foreign tax credits, thus over-taxing
income generated from these business ventures. We need to eliminate the
last vestiges of the 10/50 regime in order to level the international
playing field for U.S. companies.
I ask that all my colleagues consider and support this important
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 914
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOOK-THRU RULES TO APPLY TO DIVIDENDS FROM
NONCONTROLLED SECTION 902 CORPORATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 904(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to separate
application of section with respect to certain categories of
income) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Look-thru applies to dividends from noncontrolled
section 902 corporations.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, any
dividend from a noncontrolled section 902 corporation with
respect to the taxpayer shall be treated as income in a
separate category in proportion to the ratio of--
``(i) the portion of earnings and profits attributable to
income in such category, to
``(ii) the total amount of earnings and profits.
``(B) Special rules.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraph
(3)(F) shall apply.
``(ii) Earnings and profits.--
``(I) In general.--The rules of section 316 shall apply.
``(II) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe
regulations regarding the treatment of distributions out of
earnings and profits for periods before the taxpayer's
acquisition of the stock to which the distributions relate.
``(iii) Dividends not allocable to separate category.--The
portion of any dividend from a noncontrolled section 902
corporation which is not treated as income in a separate
category under subparagraph (A) shall be treated as a
dividend to which subparagraph (A) does not apply.
``(iv) Look-thru with respect to carryforwards of credit.--
Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) also shall
apply to any carryforward under subsection (c) from a taxable
year beginning before January 1, 2003, of tax allocable to a
dividend from a noncontrolled section 902 corporation with
respect to the taxpayer.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (E) of section 904(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect both before and after the
amendments made by section 1105 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997, is hereby repealed.
(2) Section 904(d)(2)(C)(iii) of such Code, as so in
effect, is amended by striking subclause (II) and by
redesignating subclause (III) as subclause (II).
(3) The last sentence of section 904(d)(2)(D) of such Code,
as so in effect, is amended to read as follows: ``Such term
does not include any financial services income.''.
(4) Section 904(d)(2)(E) of such Code is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or (4)'' after ``paragraph (3)'' in
clause (i), and
(B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iv) and by redesignating
clause (iii) as clause (ii).
(5) Section 904(d)(3)(F) of such Code is amended by
striking ``(D), or (E)'' and inserting ``or (D)''.
(6) Section 864(d)(5)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by
striking ``(C)(iii)(III)'' and inserting ``(C)(iii)(II)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Warner, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 915. A bill to authorize appropriations of fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 for the Department of Energy Office of
Science, to ensure that the United States is the world leader in key
scientific fields by restoring a healthy balance of science funding, to
ensure maximum use of the national user facilities, and to secure the
Nation's supply of scientists for the 21st century, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 915
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 ``Energy and Science Research
Investment Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Office of Science of the Department of Energy is
the largest Federal sponsor of civilian research in the
physical sciences and plays a major role in supporting
interdisciplinary research that contributes to other
scientific fields, including the life sciences, mathematics,
computer science, engineering, and the environmental
sciences;
(2)(A) Department of Energy laboratories have scientific
capabilities that are unmatched in typical academic or
industrial institutions;
(B) scientific teams of the laboratories are capable of
developing integrated approaches to grand scientific
challenges that are often beyond the reach of individual
experimenters; and
(C) the Human Genome Project exemplifies that capability;
(3) the facilities at the Department of Energy laboratories
are invaluable to scientists across disciplines, including
those from academia, industry, and government;
(4)(A) for more than half a century, science research has
had an extraordinary impact on the economy, national
security, medicine, energy, life sciences, and the
environment; and
(B) in the economic arena, studies show that about half of
all United States post-World War II economic growth is a
direct result of technological innovation stemming from
scientific research;
(5) the Office of Science programs, in constant dollars,
have been flat funded for more than a decade, placing the
scientific leadership of the United States in jeopardy and
limiting the generation of ideas that will enhance the
security of the United States and drive future economic
growth;
(6)(A) because the cost of conducting research increases at
a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index, flat funding for
the Office of Science has led to a decline in the number of
grants awarded, students trained, and scientists supported;
and
(B) flat and erratic funding has also led to an underuse of
the facilities that the United States has invested hundreds
of millions of dollars to construct; and
(7) higher funding levels for the Office of Science will
provide more opportunities to support graduate students in
research at universities in the fields of mathematics,
engineering, and the physical sciences, helping to alleviate
an increasing over-reliance on foreign talent in these
fields.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Program Direction.--The Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Office of Science, shall--
(1) conduct a comprehensive program of fundamental
research, including research on chemical sciences, physics,
materials sciences, biological and environmental sciences,
geosciences, engineering sciences, plasma sciences,
mathematics, and advanced scientific computing;
(2) maintain, upgrade, and expand the scientific user
facilities maintained by the Office of Science and ensure
that the facilities are an integral part of the departmental
mission for exploring the frontiers of fundamental science;
(3) maintain a leading-edge research capability in the
energy-related aspects of nanoscience and nanotechnology,
advanced scientific computing and genome research;
(4) ensure that the fundamental science programs of the
Department of Energy, as appropriate, help inform the applied
research and development programs of the Department; and
(5) ensure that Department of Energy research programs
support sufficient numbers of graduate students to maintain
the pipeline of scientists and engineers that is critical for
the future vitality of Federal laboratories and overall
United States science leadership.
[[Page S5376]]
(b) Authorities of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) for fiscal year 2004, $3,785,000,000;
(2) for fiscal year 2005, $4,153,000,000;
(3) for fiscal year 2006, $4,586,000,000;
(4) for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000,000; and
(5) for fiscal year 2008, $5,400,000,000.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce, with
Senators Alexander, Bingaman and Warner, legislation that would
authorize increased funding for the Department of Energy's, DoE, Office
of Science. For two decades, funding for the Office of Science has
remained stagnant while the cost of conducting cutting-edge research
has continued to rise. Inadequate funding levels for the Office of
Science, one of our Nation's leading sources of funding for research in
the physical sciences, threatens our Nation's leadership in all
sciences and thus also our economic well-being and our security. In the
past fifty years, roughly one-half of the Nation's economic growth has
been derived from investments in science and technology.
The DoE's Office of Science portfolio is extensive. It is the chief
sponsor of major research and user facilities benefitting researchers
in the life sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences,
mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Among these
disciplines, the Office of Science possesses primary responsibility for
research in fusion energy physics, nuclear physics, and high energy
physics. Taken together, this research supports the DoE's
responsibilities for energy security and defense.
While much of this work is conducted by scientists and researchers at
our world-class national labs, university-based research is greatly
enhanced by DoE Office of Science funds. Over one-fifth of its budget
is directed to university research, with 49 States receiving funding.
This funding plays a central role in supporting significant, long-term,
peer-reviewed basic research. Such on-campus research helps attract
motivated students to the physical sciences. By stimulating the
curiosity of talented students, and giving them a chance to engage in
quality scientific work, the Office of Science expands our knowledge
base while training the next generation of scientists and engineers.
The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics shows
the value that is posed by DoE's efforts to support on campus research
be it through the DoE's Office of Science or other DoE programs. Since
its founding in 1970, this lab has helped produce 161 Ph.D.'s.
Currently 57 students are pursuing their doctorates while working at
this facility. Additionally, the lab employs dozens of undergraduates
and helps bring high school students to the facility each summer. By
supporting nearly 2000 researchers at more than 250 universities and
institutions in cutting edge research areas such as physics,
nanotechnology, materials, genomics, and superconductivity, the Office
of Science is able to help draw students to the sciences.
It is the creation of the next generation of scientists that will
fuel our nation's economic development and staff our nation's critical
DoE facilities. According to the DoE Inspector General the ``Department
has been unable to recruit and retain critical scientific and technical
staff in a manner sufficient to meet identified mission requirements. .
. . [I]f this trend continues, the Department could face a shortage of
nearly 40 percent in these classifications within five years.''
If we do not increase funding for the DoE's Office of Science:
maintenance backlogs will increase even further at major DoE
facilities, major construction initiatives will lapse and even fewer
research grants will be funded. As a result, our Nation's leadership in
overall science and technology will be threatened since the physical
sciences provide much of the core knowledge and instrumentation that
fuel advances in many other critical fields of knowledge.
Increasing funds for the DoE's Office of Science will support
research in exciting fields such as: nanotechnology, high energy
physics, genomics and supercomputing. By investing in the Office of
Science, we can help scientists and engineers as they expand our
knowledge of the universe and inform our interactions with it.
______
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 916. A bill to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area
in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the
``National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act of 2003.''
The story behind and about the Mormon pioneers' 1400 mile trek from
Illinois to the Great Salt Lake Valley is one of the most compelling
and captivating in our Nation's history. This legislation would
designate as a National Heritage Area an area that spans some 250 miles
along Highway 89 and encompasses outstanding examples of historical,
cultural, and natural resources that demonstrate the colonization of
the western United States, and the experience and influence of the
Mormon pioneers in furthering that colonization.
The landscape, architecture, artisan skills, and events along Highway
89 convey in a very real way the legacy of the Mormon pioneers'
achievements. The community of Panquitch for example, has an annual
Quilt Day celebration to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its
pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The
celebration is in remembrance of the Quilt Walk, a walk in which a
group of men from Panquitch used quilts to form a path that would bear
their weight across the snow. This quilt walk enabled these men to
cross over the mountains to procure food for their community, which was
facing starvation as it experienced its first winter in Utah.
Another example of the tenacity of pioneers can be seen today at the
Hole-in-the-Rock. Here, in 1880, a group of 250 people, 80 wagons, and
1000 head of cattle upon the Colorado River Gorge. Finding no pathways
down to the river, the pioneers decided to use a narrow crevice leading
down to the bottom of the gorge. To make the crevice big enough to
accommodate wagons, the pioneers spent six weeks enlarging the crevice
by hand, using hammers, chisels, and blasting powder. They then
attached large ropes to the wagons as they began their descent down the
steep incline. It is because of such tenacity and innovation on the
part of pioneers that the western United States was shaped the way it
was and much of that has contributed to the way of life and landscape
still found in the West today.
The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as a special
recognition of the people and places that have contributed greatly to
our nation's development. It will allow for the conservation of
historical and cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive
exhibits, will increase public awareness of the surviving skills and
crafts of those living along Highway 89, and specifically allows for
the preservation of historic buildings. In light of the benefits
associated with preserving the rich heritage of the founding of many of
the communities along Highway 89, my legislation has broad support from
Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Garfield, and Kane counties and is a locally
based, locally supported undertaking.
I believe this legislation will provide an exciting platform from
which a significant part of our Nation's history can be highlighted.
The Senate passed this legislation last year as part of a larger
national heritage area package. While the overall package was not
considered by the other body before the last Congress adjourned, I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the
administration to pass this legislation during this session.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 917. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to require the
use of a certain minimum amount of funds for winter motorized access
trails; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to introduce a bill with great
significance for snowmachine and snowmobile advocates both in Alaska
and nationwide.
As many of my colleagues know, the use of snowmobiles is growing as a
form of recreation. There are an estimated 1.64 million snowmobiles
currently in use. In my State of Alaska, and in other northern States,
travel by snowmobile goes beyond recreation. In many areas it is a
regular form of transportation when snow prevents
[[Page S5377]]
people from traveling any other way. Snowmobiles are used regularly to
visit neighbors, to hunt for a family's food supply, to carry people
who are sick or injured to a place they can receive care. In many parts
of Alaska, snowmobiles are as common as cars.
Unfortunately, there is no existing program to provide for the proper
marking of snowmobile trails, to maintain trails, or even to encourage
safe use of these machines. The bill I am introducing today is intended
to correct that situation.
First, my bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a
snowmobile education program. Second, the bill directs the Secretary,
working with the snowmobile industry and others, to estimate the amount
of fuel tax attributable to snowmobile use in each State, and provides
that at least the same dollar amount be dedicated to the acquisition,
design, planning, construction and maintenance of snowmobile trails.
At present, 30 percent of the Recreational Trails program funding is
reserved for motorized uses, which may be combined with money for other
uses, to establish multiple-use trails and associated facilities.
However, although a portion of this funding comes from the tax paid for
fuel used in snowmobiles, there is no guarantee that any of that money
actually is used to benefit snowmobile activities.
My bill takes nothing away from any other part of the Recreational
Trails program--it simply ensures that each State spends on snowmobiles
what is collected from snowmobiles. That is simple fairness.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 917
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WINTER MOTORIZED ACCESS TRAILS.
Section 206 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Snowmachine.--The term `snow
machine' means a motorized off-road vehicle intended to
operate on snow, and which is propelled by means of a
revolving track or tracks.''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Winter motorized access trails.--
``(A) Use of funds.--
``(i) Determination by the secretary.--The Secretary shall
annually estimate revenues to the Highway Trust Fund derived
from fuel purchased in each State for use in snowmachines,
using information submitted by--
``(I) the Department of Commerce;
``(II) the Department of the Treasury;
``(III) the International Snowmobile Manufacturers
Association; and
``(IV) any other appropriate sources.
``(ii) Use of funds.--
``(I) In general.--Of amounts made available to a State for
motorized access under the recreational trails program, not
less than the amount that is equal to the revenues derived
from fuel purchased for use in the State by snowmachines, as
estimated by the Secretary under clause (i), shall be used
for activities that enhance winter motorized recreational
trails, including--
``(aa) trails on Bureau of Land Management or National
Forest land where such uses are not prohibited by law; and
``(bb) trails designed for diverse uses in other seasons.
``(II) Activities.--A State may use funds under subclause
(I) to--
``(aa) locate, survey, and map winter motorized-use or
multiple-use trails;
``(bb) document or secure public rights-of-way for trails;
``(cc) reroute trails where necessary;
``(dd) design and construct new trail routes;
``(ee) link existing trail systems;
``(ff) build trailhead facilities;
``(gg) improve trails for safe travel and multiple uses;
``(hh) establish safety caches of first aid and emergency
gear;
``(ii) sign and mark trails;
``(jj) purchase trail building and grooming equipment; and
``(kk) mobilize trail volunteers as maintenance crews,
safety patrols, and trail ambassadors.
``(B) Public information campaigns.--
``(i) In general.--Of the sums available to the Secretary
for the administration of and research and technical
assistance under the recreational trails program and for
administration of the National Recreational Trails Advisory
Committee, $50,000 shall be used for each fiscal year for
public information campaigns educating the public about, and
encouraging, the safe use of snowmachines.
``(ii) Content.--In designing the content of public
information campaigns under clause (i), the Secretary shall
consult with--
``(I) representatives of snowmachine manufacturers and
users; and
``(II) the Advertising Council.''.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, and
Mr. Jeffords):
S. 918. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to implement fully
by September 30, 2004, requirements for additional Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the tragic events of September 11, 2001,
and the ongoing military action in Iraq have changed the way that our
country thinks about defense policy, including about how we protect our
citizens here at home.
For that reason, it is vitally important that we fully implement
section 1403 of Public Law 107-314, the Bob Stump National
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, which requires the Secretary of
Defense to establish an additional 23 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil
Support Teams, WMD-CSTs, and that at least one team be located in each
State and territory of the United States.
WMD-CSTs are made up of 22 full-time National Guard personnel who are
specially trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear,
chemical, biological, or other threats in support of local first
responders. There are currently 32 full-time and 23 part-time WMD-CSTs
across the country.
Chemical, biological, and other threats present new challenges to our
military and to local responders. The WMD-CSTs play a vital role in
assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these
new threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks, and the terror alerts
issued by the Department of Homeland Security, emphasize the need to
have full-time WMD-CSTs in each State.
As the events of September 11 so clearly and tragically demonstrated,
local first responders are on the front lines of combating terrorism
and responding to other large-scale incidents. As we rethink the
security needs of our country, we should support the creation of an
additional 23 full-time WMD-CSTs as soon as possible. Establishing
these additional full-time teams will improve the overall capability of
Wisconsin and the other 18 States and 4 territories with part-time
teams to prepare for and respond to potential threats to the future.
In light of the tragic events of September 11, the ongoing threat of
terrorist activities, and the military action in Iraq, the presence of
at least one WMD-CST in each State is all the more imperative.
The provisions included in last year's Defense authorization bill
represent an important step forward in the effort to establish WMD-CSTs
in each State and territory. My bill would build on this progress by
including a deadline by which these teams have to be established and
providing the resources necessary to staff, equip, train, and operate
these teams.
The legislation that I introduce today, the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Team Implementation Act of 2003, would
require the Secretary of Defense to fully implement section 1403 by
September 30, 2004. The costs associated with setting up these new
teams would be paid for by an across-the-board cut to the fiscal year
2004 procurement account.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Vermont,
Mr. Leahy, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, the Senator from
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, the
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, the Senator from Maryland, Mr.
Sarbanes, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the Senior Senator
from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.
The terrorist attacks and the subsequent mobilization of tens of
thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists, and the activation of
hundreds of thousands of guardsmen and reservists for the military
campaign in Iraq, also underscore the need to provide adequate
resources for and to ensure full-time manning of the National Guard. As
we
[[Page S5378]]
move to establish at least one 22-member WMD-CST in each State, we
should also allocate the necessary resources to ensure adequate
National Guard personnel end-strengths to provide for full-time manning
and for the additional personnel necessary for these new teams.
For that reason, our bill would also authorize an additional 506
full-time National Guard positions to man these new teams.
Given the important role that the men and women of the National Guard
play in our ongoing missions at home and abroad, we should ensure that
the establishment of these important teams does not put at risk full-
time manning in other vital areas of the National Guard's mission.
It is important that the additional WMD-CSTs are established as soon
as possible.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 918
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 ``Weapons of Mass Destruction
Civil Support Teams Implementation Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT
TEAMS.
(a) Deadline for Full Implementation.--The Secretary of
Defense shall fully implement the requirements regarding the
establishment and number of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil
Support Teams under section 1403(a) of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law
107-314; 116 Stat. 2676; 10 U.S.C. 12310 note) not later than
September 30, 2004.
(b) Personnel.--In order to meet the requirement in
subsection (a), the authorized end strengths for members of
the National Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty
as of September 30, 2004, shall be increased over the number
of such members otherwise authorized by law by the number of
such members as follows:
(1) For the Army National Guard of the United States, 414
members of the National Guard.
(2) For the Air National Guard of the United States, 92
members of the National Guard.
(c) Funding.--(1) From the aggregate amount authorized to
be appropriated for procurement for the Armed Forces by title
I of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004, there shall be available (and may be transferred to
other authorizations of appropriations, as appropriate) such
sums as the Secretary considers appropriate to meet the
requirement in subsection (a) in accordance with this
section.
(2) The Secretary shall allocate among the accounts for
procurement for the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2004 the
reduction in amounts available for such procurement under
title I of that Act by reason of the availability of funds
under paragraph (1) to meet the requirement in subsection
(a).
______
By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 919. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance
competition among and between rail carriers in order to ensure
efficient rail service and reasonable rail rates, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. President, I am proud today to join a bipartisan
and geographically diverse group of Senators to introduce the Railroad
Competition Act of 2003. When enacted, the Railroad Competition Act
will benefits rail shippers, retail shoppers, and, I believe, the
railroad industry itself, by promoting real competition in the nation's
freight rail transportation sector.
I am especially proud to be working on this issue alongside two of my
colleagues, Senators Dorgan and Burns, with whom I have shared this
effort for many years. This is an issue I have been dealing with since
my first days as Governor of West Virginia. I cosponsored similar
bipartisan legislation during my first year as a United States Senator.
Including today's introduction. I have sponsored legislation in six
different Congresses going back to 1985 to try to instill competition
in the freight rail market to invigorate an industry that is essential
to the commerce of this Nation. This is the fourth straight Congress in
which Senators Burns and Dorgan have joined me to fight for fairness
for shippers in our states and throughout the country.
I frequently say that I have worked on this for my entire Senate
career, and with little discernible success. Still, I am not dissuaded
from pursuing this legislation again because I know our cause is right.
What this bill does is really very simple. We seek nothing more than a
freight rail industry governed by the principles of capitalism--
competition, service, fair prices, and the ability of sophisticated
actors to conduct arms-length negotiations for these things. We also
seek a return--not to the regulated industry that predates the Staggers
Act--but to the competitive freight rail industry envisioned by the
Congress that passed it.
If we are successful in this effort, it will mean a newly level
playing field for shippers and railroads. It will mean goods being
picked up on time and being delivered on time. It will mean products
traveling short distances will not be priced per mile at a price that
is almost usuriously higher than products traveling great distances.
Shippers moving small amounts of product will not be unduly
disadvantaged by railroads who answer to no person or governmental
entity. What this bill will not do, is re-regulate the railroads.
The Railroad Competition Act will do the following: clarify that the
STB shall promote effective competition among rail carriers, helping to
maintain both reasonable freight rail rates and consistent and
efficient rail service; create a system if ``final offer'' arbitration
for matters before the STB; authorize the STB to remove so-called
``paper barriers'' in place for ten years or more that prevent short-
line and regional railroads from providing improved service to
shippers; remove the requirement for shippers to demonstrate ``Anti-
Competitive Conduct'' on the part of railroads--retains statutory
authority for STB to act in the ``public interest''; cap filing fees
for STB rate cases at the level of Federal district courts, reducing
filing fee from approximately $65,000; require railroads to quote rates
to their customers; call for a Department of Transportation, DOT, study
of rail competition; allow States to petition the STB for declarations
of ``areas of inadequate rail competition,'' and creates applicable
remedies; create position of Rail Customer Advocate at U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA).
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the freight rail industry that
the authors of the Staggers Act sought to create, and to which we hope
to give new life with this bill, is really fairly mundane. Upon
enactment of this legislation, shippers weighing their transportation
options will be able to get railroads to do the most basic thing that
occurs in business relationships--quote a price for the service
requested. In other words, railroads will tell shippers how much it is
going to cost to move a certain amount of product from Point A to Point
B. Hardly remarkable, hardly earth-shattering, but that very simple,
everyday aspect of business negotiations is so rare in the freight rail
sector today that it is hardly ever seen.
How can this be? How can railroads get away with not telling their
customers how much they are going to be charged for a service?
Railroads can carry out this bizarre practice, as well as other
amazingly anti-competitive business practices, because they are one of
the last unfettered monopolies in our economy. The Staggers Act only
partially deregulated our freight rail industry, and provided for a
government entity to protect competition for shippers. That authority
fell then to the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, ICC, and
the power should now be exercised by the Surface Transportation Board,
STB. The ICC did not do a very good job of protecting competition, and
the STB has fairly consistently chosen not to.
This has resulted in a freight rail market in which customers have no
power. In real-world terms, this means that electricity produced from
coal, and virtually everything you buy in the store--food, medicines,
paper products, plastics, and anything made from any number of basic
chemical products--is more expensive than it should be because
railroads abuse their monopoly power to keep rail rates artificially
high.
In fact, even back in the bad, old days of the ICC-regulated rail
sector,
[[Page S5379]]
many railroads enjoyed ``natural'' monopolies over portions of their
network. In most cases, this fact could usually be balanced by the
number of railroads providing service. In the twenty-three years since
Congress passed the Staggers Act, however, the previous number of Class
I freight railroads--more than 40--has dwindled down to an all-powerful
few. This has expanded a handful of scattered ``natural'' monopolies to
basically four regional monopolies--two in the eastern United States,
and two in the West (with the smallest of the Class I railroads
operating its small network of track along the Mississippi). There is
no balance in the system; there is only the railroad industry charging
its take-it-or-leave-it prices and providing woefully bad service.
I would conclude by saying to my colleagues that this legislation has
laudable goals, but it is not revolutionary. We have seen how
competition in other industries has strengthened the players willing
and able to compete. It is not the reactionary, re-regulatory vehicle
the freight rail industry will try to tell you it is. It is nothing
more and nothing less than an attempt to implement fairness where it
has been lacking. The viability of so many of our industries--the
railroads included--depends on this legislation becoming law.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a bill, the
Railroad Competition Act of 2003, which, along with Senators Burns,
Rockefeller, Craig, Baucus, Coleman, and Johnson, I hope will introduce
a bit of competition and better service in our railroad industry. The
truth is that our rail system is completely broken; deregulation has
only led to a system dominated by regional monopolies and both shippers
and consumers are paying the price.
Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the
number of major Class I railroads has been allowed to decline from
approximately 42 to only 4 major U.S. railroads today. Four mega-
railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95
percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues,
controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all
grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement. This
drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only two
major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has far
exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs.
But consolidation has not happened in a vacuum. Over the years,
regulators have systematically adopted policies that so narrowly
interpret the procompetitive provisions of the 1980 statute that
railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete with
each other. As a consequence rail users to have no power to choose
among carriers either in terminal areas where switching infrastructure
makes such choices feasible, nor can rail users even get a rate quoted
to them over a ``bottleneck'' segment of the monopoly system.
The negative results of this approach have been astonishing in North
Dakota. It costs $2,600 to move one rail car of wheat to Minneapolis,
approximately 400 miles. Yet for a similar 400 mile move between
Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $918 to deliver that car. Not
only is that totally unfair to the captive farmer, but in the long run
it is unsustainable.
It is actually $500 per car cheaper to ship a carload of corn from
Iowa to the PNW, through North Dakota, than it is if that carload were
to originate in North Dakota. The farmer in Iowa pays $2,900, while the
farmer in North Dakota is charged $3,400.
The same pattern is true with shipments going to the Gulf of Mexico.
Minot, ND is 1,732 miles from the gulf whereas the distance to the gulf
from Herman, MN is 1,430 miles, a difference of only 332 miles. But
when it comes to paying the shipping costs the farmer in Minot pays
$1,630 more per car because Minot is just isolated enough that it
cannot take advantage of trucks and barges the way Herman, MN, can
meaning the price of being captive is $1,600 per carload from central
North Dakota.
Another example is Hastings, NE. Hastings is 1,700 miles from the
Pacific Northwest, PNW, grain markets in Portland, OR. But, if an
elevator from Hastings wants to ship a carload of wheat to the PNW they
will pay $4,316. Meanwhile, Minot, ND, is 1,300 miles from Portland,
450 miles closer than Hastings, NE, yet the farmer in Minot will have
to pay $4,442 to ship the same carload of wheat to the PNW, a surcharge
of $126 for a shipment that is shorter by 400 miles.
How has this happened? Since the deregulation of the railroad
industry, it has been the responsibility of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, later renamed, the Surface Transportation Board, to make
sure that the pro-competitive intent of the law was being upheld. It is
the STBs charge to protect captive shippers through ``regulated
competition.''
In 1999 the GAO reported on how complicated it is for a shipper to
get rate relief under the ``regulated competition'' approach at the
STB. The GAO found that this process takes up to 500 days to decide,
and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is hardly a rate
relief process, but it is the only relief shippers have under the law.
According to the North Dakota Public Service Commission ``while the
Staggers Rail Act uses a revenue-to-variable cost ratio of 180 percent
as a benchmark for reasonableness, North Dakota's rail rates on wheat
often generate ratios of 270 to 400 percent. On an annual basis, North
Dakota's farmers and grain shippers pay $50 to $100 million in excess
freight rates [each year].''
The Railroad Competition Act of 2003 will seek to improve things by
reaffirming the strong role the STB should play in protecting shippers
by: clarifying national rail policy; requiring railroads to quote a
rate of any given segment; facilitating terminal access and the ability
to transfer goods among railroads in terminal areas; removing paper
barriers to competition; capping filing fees; creating a Rail Customer
Advocacy Office in the Department of Agriculture; designating Areas of
Inadequate Rail Competition; and by making the rate relief process
cheaper, faster and easier through a streamlined arbitration process.
All Americans, whether they are farmers who need to ship their crops
to market, businesses shipping factory goods, or consumers that buy the
finished product, deserve to have a rail transportation system with
prices that are fair. It is time for Congress to stand up for farmers,
businesses, and consumers by making it very clear that the STB has to
be a more aggressive defender of competition and reasonable rates.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 920. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce today the
Federal Judgeship Act of 2003. This bill will alleviate some of the
strain on the vastly overburdened Federal courts by creating a total of
57 new judgeships: Eleven new circuit judgeships and 46 new district
judgeships. It also converts five existing temporary judgeships to
permanent positions. In addition, the bill confers Article III status
on the judgeships authorized for the Northern Mariana Islands and the
Virgin Islands.
The Judicial Conference of the United States endorses the provisions
in this bill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 921. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to
make grants to reimburse State and local governments and Indian tribes
for certain costs relating to the mobilization of Reserves who are
first responder personnel of such governments or tribes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``State and
Local Reservist First Responders Assistance Act of 2003.'' My bill
would reimburse State and local governments for the additional costs
they incur when their first responders who also serve in the National
Guard or the Reserves are called to active duty for 6 or more months.
[[Page S5380]]
I am pleased to have as original cosponsors of my bill Senators
Clinton, Corzine, Daschle, Leahy, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Schumer.
The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the Guard and the Reserves
are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3
percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary,
or nearly doubling our Armed Forces personnel.
Not surprisingly, many police, fire, rescue, emergency medical
service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in
the Guard and the Reserves. More and more of these men and women are
being called to active duty for longer and longer tours, especially now
because of the war with Iraq.
It's critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and
abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security
at home.
Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are
concerned about the toll that Guard and Reserve call-ups are taking on
emergency preparedness.
It can be a major problem in smaller towns where just a few call-ups
can decimate a local fire or police department. The Town of Ridgewood,
for instance, had a patrolman called up who also headed the EMS,
emergency medical services. It is costing the town $200,000 to replace
him.
Because of the recession that began in March 2001 and the effects of
9-11, State and local governments are financially strapped. We
shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders
get called to active duty for months at a time.
My bill would establish a grant program to be administered by the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS. State and local units of
government could apply for grants to cover the unanticipated costs
associated with replacing a first responder called to active duty for 6
months or more.
Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated
with hiring a temporary replacement or the overtime paid to other
emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to
active duty.
If a jurisdiction does not pay its reservist and uses the savings to
hire a temporary replacement or pay others overtime, those ``costs''
would not be reimbursable. Only net additional costs would be
reimbursable.
My bill will help communities in my home State of New Jersey and
across the country maintain their ability to respond to terrorist
attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
A logical question to ask regarding my bill is, ``How much does it
cost?'' The candid answer is, ``I don't know.''
The bill authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as may be
necessary.''
The stipulation in the bill that the first responders must be called
to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months is meant to keep the
costs of the bill under control and to ensure that the grant program is
administratively feasible.
I have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get a handle on how many
first responders have been called to active duty, and for how long. It
appears that no one is really keeping track.
The anecdotal evidence of the need for my bill, however, is
overwhelming.
According to the Department of Defense, there are a total of 221,186
Reservists and National Guardsmen and women on active duty right now.
Many of them, obviously, are first responders.
According to the Police Executive Research Forum, PERF, 452 of 1002
law enforcement agencies and departments across the country surveyed so
far have lost personnel to call-ups.
The Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, has determined that 27 of the
44 police departments it has surveyed are experiencing personnel
shortfalls caused, in part, by military call-ups.
Of the remaining 17 departments, 15 are in danger of being hurt by
call-ups.
According to the DLC, ``About 5 percent of the officers in these
departments are reservists or members of the National Guard--and many
are already being called up for service in the wars against terrorism,
Afghanistan, and Iraq. On average, the activation of only 30 percent of
these reserves would cause a personnel shortage in these departments.''
The DLC report, entitled ``Cop Crunch'' and previewed in the March/
April issue of Blueprint, lists the following ten jurisdictions as most
vulnerable to military call-ups: 1. Fresno, which has about 100
reservists who make up 14.4 percent of the force; 2. Virginia Beach,
which has 90 reservists who make up 12.1 percent of the force; 3.
Milwaukee, which has 110 reservists who make up 8.2 percent of the
force; 4. Miami, which has 86 reservists who make up 8.0 percent of the
force; 5. Memphis, which has 143 reservists who make up 7.5 percent of
the force; 6. San Antonio, which has 151 reservists who make up 7.4
percent of the force; 7. Los Angeles, which has 650 reservists who make
up 7.3 percent of the force; 8. Oklahoma City, which has 70 reservists
who make up 6.8 percent of the force; 9. Wichita, which has 41
reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force; and 10. New Orleans,
which has 109 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force.
The DLC report also highlighted Baltimore's police department. The
City has lost the equivalent of an entire police district, 150
officers, to active duty call-ups.
So, the need for my bill is obvious. State and local governments
desperately need our help. We shouldn't put our own communities, our
own citizens, at risk to win the war with Iraq.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brownback,
Mr. Coleman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy,
and Mr. Hagel):
S. 922. A bill to change the requirements for naturalization through
service in the Armed Forces of the United States, to extend
naturalization benefits to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, to extend
posthumous benefits to surviving spouses, children, and parents, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Durbin, Senator Brownback, Senator Coleman, Senator McCain,
Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Leahy, and Senator Hagel to
introduce this bill, the Naturalization and Family Protection for
Military Members Act of 2003, which will expedite the naturalization
process for noncitizen soldiers serving in active duty and in the
select reserves and enact safeguards to protect noncitizen immediate
relatives of American soldiers who are killed in action.
More than 48,900 noncitizens are currently serving in the United
States military and hundreds are serving from the State of Nevada. They
place their lives on the line for our country every day. In recognition
and appreciation of their service, they deserve a naturalization
process that does not unnecessarily delay the grant of citizenship or
impose other restraints because they are stationed in another country.
These noncitizen soldiers love America so much they are willing to
make great sacrifices to protect us and promote our values and even
defend the Constitution--although they do not fully enjoy its
protections. They deserve better treatment than they currently receive.
Like many Americans, I was moved by the story of Corporal Jose Angel
Garibay, who came to the United States from Mexico at the age of two
months in the arms of a stranger because the trip was too rough for his
mother to carry him through the hills near Tijuana herself. At the age
of 11 he announced to his brother that he planned to join the United
States military. Although a noncitizen, he believed anything was
possible in this land of opportunity and hoped to become a police
officer. The proudest day for the Garibay family was the day Jose
joined the Marines. Sadly, on March 23, at the young age of 21, he died
near Nasirivah, Iraq. Who can say that Corporal Garibay, citizen or
not, is any less of a hero? Our noncitizen soldiers deserve a system
that does not drop current applications or disallow eligible
applications for legal permanent residency by their immediate
relatives.
This Act will provide necessary relief to current noncitizens serving
in active
[[Page S5381]]
duty and the ready reserves within the United States military by
setting forth an expedited process of naturalization. This Act will
also provide protections for noncitizen spouses, unmarried children,
and parents of citizen and noncitizen soldiers who are killed as a
result of their service to file or preserve their application for
lawful permanent residence.
I rise today in support of action that will recognize and honor
current noncitizen soldiers in the United States armed forces and will
honor the legacy of all of our soldiers who have been killed in action
by providing fair and sympathetic treatment of their immediate
relatives seeking legal permanent residency.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 922
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 ``Naturalization and Family
Protection for Military Members Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALIZATION THROUGH SERVICE IN
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Reduction of Period for Required Service.--Section
328(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1439(a)) is amended by striking ``three years'' and inserting
``2 years''.
(b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees Relating to
Naturalization.--Title III of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 328(b)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``honorable. The'' and inserting
``honorable (the''; and
(ii) by striking ``discharge.'' and inserting ``discharge);
and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee
shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a
petition for naturalization or for the issuance of a
certificate of naturalization upon citizenship being granted
to the applicant, and no clerk of any State court shall
charge or collect any fee for such services unless the laws
of the State require such charge to be made, in which case
nothing more than the portion of the fee required to be paid
to the State shall be charged or collected.''; and
(2) in section 329(b)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee
shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a
petition for naturalization or for the issuance of a
certificate of naturalization upon citizenship being granted
to the applicant, and no clerk of any State court shall
charge or collect any fee for such services unless the laws
of the State require such charge to be made, in which case
nothing more than the portion of the fee required to be paid
to the State shall be charged or collected.''.
(c) Naturalization Proceedings Overseas for Members of the
Armed Forces.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that any
applications, interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies, or
other proceedings under title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) relating to
naturalization of members of the Armed Forces are available
through United States embassies, consulates, and as
practicable, United States military installations overseas.
(d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 328(b)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(3))
is amended by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting
``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 3. NATURALIZATION BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE OF THE READY RESERVE.
Section 329(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1440(a)) is amended by inserting ``as a member of the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve or'' after ``has served
honorably''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF POSTHUMOUS BENEFITS TO SURVIVING
SPOUSES, CHILDREN, AND PARENTS.
(a) Treatment as Immediate Relatives.--
(1) Spouses.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), in the case of an alien who
was the spouse of a citizen of the United States at the time
of the citizen's death and was not legally separated from the
citizen at the time of the citizen's death, if the citizen
served honorably in an active duty status in the military,
air, or naval forces of the United States and died as a
result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by that
service, the alien (and each child of the alien) shall be
considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of such Act, to
remain an immediate relative after the date of the citizen's
death, but only if the alien files a petition under section
204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act within 2 years after such date
and only until the date the alien remarries. For purposes of
such section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii), an alien granted relief under
the preceding sentence shall be considered an alien spouse
described in the second sentence of section 201(b)(2)(A)(i)
of such Act.
(2) Children.--
(A) In general.--In the case of an alien who was the child
of a citizen of the United States at the time of the
citizen's death, if the citizen served honorably in an active
duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the
United States and died as a result of injury or disease
incurred in or aggravated by that service, the alien shall be
considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)), to remain an
immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death
(regardless of changes in age or marital status thereafter),
but only if the alien files a petition under subparagraph (B)
within 2 years after such date.
(B) Petitions.--An alien described in subparagraph (A) may
file a petition with the Secretary of Homeland Security for
classification of the alien under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). For purposes of such Act, such a petition
shall be considered a petition filed under section
204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)).
(3) Parents.--
(A) In general.--In the case of an alien who was the parent
of a citizen of the United States at the time of the
citizen's death, if the citizen served honorably in an active
duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the
United States and died as a result of injury or disease
incurred in or aggravated by that service, the alien shall be
considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)), to remain an
immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death
(regardless of changes in age or marital status thereafter),
but only if the alien files a petition under subparagraph (B)
within 2 years after such date.
(B) Petitions.--An alien described in subparagraph (A) may
file a petition with the Secretary of Homeland Security for
classification of the alien under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). For purposes of such Act, such a petition
shall be considered a petition filed under section
204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)).
(C) Exception.--Notwithstanding section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), for purposes of this paragraph, a citizen
described in subparagraph (A) does not have to be 21 years of
age for a parent to benefit under this paragraph.
(b) Applications for Adjustment of Status by Surviving
Spouses, Children, and Parents.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (c) of
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1255), any alien who was the spouse, child, or parent of an
alien described in paragraph (2), and who applied for
adjustment of status prior to the death described in
paragraph (2)(B), may have such application adjudicated as if
such death had not occurred.
(2) Alien described.--An alien is described in this
paragraph if the alien--
(A) served honorably in an active duty status in the
military, air, or naval forces of the United States;
(B) died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or
aggravated by that service; and
(C) was granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1).
(c) Spouses and Children of Lawful Permanent Resident
Aliens.--
(1) Treatment as immediate relatives.--
(A) In general.--A spouse or child of an alien described in
paragraph (3) who is included in a petition for
classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section
203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1153(a)(2)) that was filed by such alien, shall be considered
(if the spouse or child has not been admitted or approved for
lawful permanent residence by such date) a valid petitioner
for immediate relative status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). Such spouse or child shall be eligible for
deferred action, advance parole, and work authorization.
(B) Petitions.--An alien spouse or child described in
subparagraph (A) may file a petition with the Secretary of
Homeland Security for classification of the alien under
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)). For purposes of such Act,
such a petition shall be considered a petition filed under
section 204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)).
(2) Self-petitions.--Any spouse or child of an alien
described in paragraph (3) who is not a beneficiary of a
petition for classification as a family-sponsored immigrant
may file a petition for such classification under section
201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, but only if the spouse or child files a petition
within 2 years after such date. Such spouse or child shall be
eligible for deferred action, advance parole, and work
authorization.
[[Page S5382]]
(3) Alien described.--An alien is described in this
paragraph if the alien--
(A) served honorably in an active duty status in the
military, air, or naval forces of the United States;
(B) died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or
aggravated by that service; and
(C) was granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1).
(d) Parents of Lawful Permanent Resident Aliens.--
(1) Self-petitions.--Any parent of an alien described in
paragraph (2) may file a petition for classification under
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), but only if the parent files
a petition within 2 years after such date. For purposes of
such Act, such petition shall be considered a petition filed
under section 204(a)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)). Such parent shall be eligible for deferred
action, advance parole, and work authorization.
(2) Alien described.--An alien is described in this
paragraph if the alien--
(A) served honorably in an active duty status in the
military, air, or naval forces of the United States;
(B) died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or
aggravated by that service; and
(C) was granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1).
(e) Adjustment of Status.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)
and (c) of section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1255), an alien physically present in the United
States who is the beneficiary of a petition under paragraph
(1), (2)(B), or (3)(B) of subsection (a), paragraph (1)(B) or
(2) of subsection (c), or subsection (d)(1) of this section,
may apply to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence.
(f) Waiver of Certain Grounds of Inadmissibility.--In
determining the admissibility of any alien accorded an
immigration benefit under this section, the grounds for
inadmissibility specified in paragraphs (4), (6), (7), and
(9) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) shall not apply.
(g) Benefits to Survivors; Technical Amendment.--Section
329A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1)
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e); and
(2) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
(h) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 319(d) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1430(d)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``, child, or parent'' after ``surviving
spouse'';
(2) by inserting ``, parent, or child'' after ``whose
citizen spouse''; and
(3) by striking ``who was living'' and inserting ``who, in
the case of a surviving spouse, was living''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect as if enacted on September 11, 2001.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, my colleagues and I are
introducing legislation to recognize the enormous contributions of
immigrants in the military. The Naturalization and Family Protection
for Military Members Act of 2003 will enable immigrant men and women of
our Armed Forces to obtain easier access to naturalization, and it will
establish immigration protections for their families if they are killed
in action.
In all our wars throughout our history, immigrants have fought side
by side and have given their lives to defend America's freedom and
ideals. One out of every five recipients of the Congressional Medal of
Honor, the highest honor our Nation bestows on our war heroes, have
been immigrants. Their bravery is unequivocal proof that immigrants are
as dedicated as any other Americans to defend our country.
Today, 37,000 men and women have the status of permanent residents,
who are not yet citizens, but are serving in the Army, Navy, Marine,
Air Force, and Coast Guard. Another 20,000 permanent residents are
serving in the Reserves and the National Guard. Since the war in Iraq
began two and a half weeks ago, eight of the dead, two of the missing,
and two prisoners of war are immigrants to the United States. Only four
were naturalized U.S. citizens.
Granting these men and women posthumous citizenship is the right
thing to do, but we must do more. This bill gives members of the armed
services who are already lawful permanent residents, easier access to
naturalization. It gives certain immigration benefits to their
immediate family members in the event of their death. It would amend
immigration laws: to allow lawful permanent resident military personnel
to naturalize after serving 2 years in the military. They can
participate in naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at
U.S. embassies, consulates, and overseas military installations.
Naturalization fees would be waived.
Recruiting needs are immediate in wartime and readiness is essential.
As the war in Iraq goes on and our commitment to ending global
terrorism continues, more and more of these brave men and women are
being called to active duty. Many of them are members of the Selected
Reserve--Reserve and National Guard members subject to recall to active
duty during a war or other national emergency. Many reservists have
already been activated, and many more expect to be called up at a
moment's notice to defend our country and assist in the war effort.
They too deserve special recognition for their bravery and sacrifice.
Our bill does just that. Lawful permanent residents who are members of
the Selected Reserve will have naturalization benefits similar to those
conferred on members of the regular forces on duty. They will have
expedited naturalization during times of war or hostile military
operations.
Finally, our bill will protect the immigration status of immediate
family members who were dependent upon their citizen or noncitizen's
relative, if the relative was honorably serving in the military and was
killed as a result of the service. We know the tragic losses endured by
these families for the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made.
It is unfair that they should have to lose their immigration status as
well.
Our legislation will amend the immigration laws to ensure that
grieving immediate family members are given the opportunity to legalize
their immigration status and not be threatened with deportation.
Specifically, these family members--noncitizen spouses, children,
parents of citizens and parents of noncitizens serving in the military
who are killed as a result of their service--will be able to file or
preserve their application for lawful permanent residence.
The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act is
a tribute to the sacrifices that these future Americans are already
making now for their adopted country. They deserve this important
benefit, and we urge the Senate to approve it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the American people are united in support
of our service members, many of whom are serving today in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere abroad. We have the finest Armed Forces in
the world, and we have asked them to bear a heavy burden. The Senate
has justly expressed our support for the troops, but we have an
obligation to do more than just pass resolutions. We have to back up
our words with actions.
That is why I recently introduced an amendment, which the Senate
unanimously approved, to raise combat pay and increase family support
for our service members. That is why I joined several of my
distinguished colleagues today in introducing a bill that would help
immigrant soldiers and their families. The Naturalization and Family
Protection for Military Members Act of 2003 would expedite
naturalization for legal permanent residents in the military and
preserve the rights of noncitizen family members of deceased service
members.
There are over 37,000 legal permanent residents on active duty and
over 20,000 on reserve duty. These brave men and women have willingly
put themselves in harm's way to defend our country. They are living
proof that immigration is good for our country.
On the battlefield, there is no distinction between American citizens
and noncitizens--everyone is an American service member sworn to defend
our Nation. We owe a debt of gratitude to all service members, whether
citizen or noncitizen, who have put their lives on the line to keep us
all safe and free.
But legal resident service members, who have voluntarily taken on a
burden that many Americans will never know, face unnecessary hurdles on
the path to citizenship. Even more tragically, if, God forbid, they are
killed in combat, the law can prevent their immediate family members
from naturalizing. This is a cruel and unjust manner in which to treat
the families of legal immigrants who gave their lives for our country.
[[Page S5383]]
The sacrifices of these immigrant service members are a poignant
reminder that too often our immigration law treats immigrants callously
and unfairly, ignoring the tremendous contributions that they make to
American society. While preserving the integrity of our naturalization
process, we should do everything we can to correct legal technicalities
that make it difficult for immigrant soldiers to become citizens and
prevent their surviving family member from naturalizing.
It is important to note that this bill would not in any way
compromise the naturalization process or national security. It would
not automatically confer citizenship. Service members and their
families would still be required to petition for naturalization, at
which time they would be subjected to a full background check.
For legal permanent residents in military service, the bill would
reduce the required period of military service to apply for
naturalization during peacetime from 3 years to 2 years. The bill would
also allow them to naturalize overseas, and waive the filing fee for
their naturalization applications. For service members who are posted
overseas for long periods and are struggling to make ends meet, these
provisions are vitally important.
Currently, immediate family members of service members who are killed
in the line of duty lose their right to file for citizenship. It is
wrong and unjust to penalize people because their spouse, parent, or
child made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. The bill would
preserve the rights to petition for citizenship of noncitizen spouses,
unmarried children, and parents of citizen soldiers who are killed as a
result of such service.
Passing this bill is the least that we can do to honor and support
the brave immigrant men and women who are serving our country during
these dangerous times. I urge the Senate to approve it.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy
today in introducing legislation to honor the contributions of
immigrants who have shown their dedication both to this country and to
creating a better future for themselves by joining the military. The
Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003
will do two important things: it will offer easier access to
naturalization for immigrant men and women of our Armed Forces, and it
will establish immigration protections for their families if they are
killed in action.
In this time of war, it is especially important to recognize those
who are fighting as we speak to preserve our freedom and our way of
life. This is particularly true for those immigrants who have too often
given their lives to defend our principles. In fact, after just 2\1/2\
weeks of our current conflict, of the 71 U.S. service members killed,
seven missing and seven captured, eight of those killed, two of the
missing, and two of the captured are immigrants. Most important, only
four of the immigrants were U.S. citizens when the war began.
There are more than 30,000 noncitizens on active duty in the U.S.
military--approximately 2 percent of the total U.S. forces. In the
Reserves and the National guard are another 20,000 noncitizens. These
immigrants have proven a dedication to our country by joining the
military or the Reserves or National Guard, a dedication which should
be recognized and rewarded.
The bill we are introducing will do that. First, it provides easier
access to naturalization to members of the armed service who are
already lawful permanent residents. Currently, being a member of the
armed service allows a permanent legal resident to reduce their wait
time for naturalization from 5 years to 3 years--our legislation would
reduce the time to only 2 years. It would also ease this process by
allowing naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at U.S.
embassies, consulates, and overseas military installations, and by
waiving naturalization fees.
In addition, the bill provides for the immediate families of
immigrant service personnel killed in action by either giving them the
opportunity to legalize their immigration status or by allowing them to
proceed with their own applications for naturalization as if the death
had not happened. By protecting their immigration status, this element
provides critical acknowledgment of the sacrifices that the families of
our military members make as well.
Finally, the bill also remembers those courageous men and women who
ensure that in times of war or hostility, our country is ready and our
recruiting needs are met. While we have seen success in Iraq in recent
days, this war is not yet over--in fact, we have truly only reached the
beginning of the end, not the end. As such, we must keep in mind that
more and more Reserve and National Guard units are being called to
active duty. Therefore, we have not forgotten the bravery of those who
have immigrated and filled our ranks. Our legislation says that
naturalization benefits similar to those conferred on members of the
regular forces on duty will also apply to lawful permanent residents
who are members of the Reserves or National Guard. In other words, they
will have expedited naturalization during times of war or hostile
military operations.
This Nation has long reserved the Congressional Medal of Honor for
those select war heroes of unsurpassed courage. It is our highest honor
and our greatest praise--and one out of every five recipients of this
honor have been immigrants. This accounting of the bravery and spirit
of the immigrants in our Armed Forces speaks to the fact that they are
as dedicated and as willing to sacrifice on our Nation's behalf.
The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act is
an important piece of legislation that both honors and rewards
immigrants to this Nation. They are already legal permanent residents--
this simply ensures that they have the opportunity to truly become a
part of this country through citizenship. I urge the Senate to give its
full consideration to this bill and to lend its support.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Daschle, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Ms.
Mikulski, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 923. A bill to provide for additional weeks of temporary extended
unemployment compensation, to provide for a program of temporary
enhanced regular unemployment compensation, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. The economy continues to falter. Hundreds of thousands
of hard-working men and women have lost their jobs, and consumer
confidence is the lowest in 9 years. Americans are suffering. College
graduates can't find jobs. Americans who have worked all their lives
are out of work. Their unemployment benefits are running out. They are
losing their savings, and watching their 401(k) plans plummet. They are
being forced to take desperate measures--selling their homes, moving
back in with their parents, or cashing in their retirement savings.
Our first domestic priority should be to get America back to work.
Democrats have a plan to do just that. The Senate Democratic proposal
for economic growth will create more than 1 million jobs next year,
three times as many as President Bush's plan. It will provide fiscal
relief to states to avoid further lay-offs and make vital investments
in the economy to achieve growth.
But out-of-work Americans also need help and they need it now. The
Economic Security Act I am introducing today will extend temporary
Federal unemployment benefits for 6 months past the May expiration
date. It will provide additional weeks of benefits as in past
recessions and provide extended benefits to the more than 1 million
Americans who have run out of benefits but still cannot find work. It
will also give states the option to use Federal funds to extend
coverage to part-time workers and low-wage workers. This bill will help
more than 4 million workers, including 150,000 in Massachusetts.
The unemployment rate remains high at 5.8 percent, with 8.4 million
Americans out of work, and those numbers don't include discouraged
workers, who have dropped out of the labor force, or those working
part-time because they can't find a full-time job. When these workers
are included, the true unemployment rate is 10.4 percent.
[[Page S5384]]
Over the last two months, the economy has lost nearly half a million
jobs. More than 330,000 jobs have been lost in Massachusetts, including
20,000 in Boston and 23,000 in Worcester. Such severe, persistent loss
of jobs 2 years after the beginning of a recession is unheard of since
the Great Depression.
Richard Wilcox of Canton, MA has taken to standing on a street corner
holding up a sign that says ``I need a job . . . 36 years experience:
Insurance/Management.'' Thirty-six years of experience, and he has had
only two interviews after a year of sending out hundreds of resumes.
Mr. Wilcox is not alone. The crisis in our labor market has continued
to worsen under the current administration's watch. Two and a half
million more Americans have lost their jobs since the Bush
administration took office, and the number of long-term unemployed has
nearly tripled.
The economy is still not showing clear signs of recovery, and the
number of unemployed continues to grow. The administration's own budget
predicts an average of 5.7 percent unemployment for this year. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be 5.9 percent.
In this bleak condition, unemployed workers deserve to be able to
count on a further extension of benefits when the current one expires
at the end of May. In the last recession, we enacted an extension of
benefits five times with overwhelming bipartisan support. Now as then,
out-of-work Americans need our help.
In the last recession we also made sure that workers who ran out of
Federal benefits but still could not find work were not left in the
cold. Today, one in five unemployed workers has been out of work for
more than 6 months. One million of these long-term unemployed are
without jobs and without any safety net. With three unemployed workers
vying for every job, workers across the county are losing hope.
The current unemployment insurance system clearly needs to be
modernized to cover today's workers. Two glaring defects stand out. In
1975, 75 percent of unemployed workers were eligible for unemployment
benefits, compared to only half of such workers last year. Many of the
unemployed who fail to receive benefits are part-time and low-wage
workers. Only eight States provide benefits to unemployed residents
seeking part-time work on the same basis as the benefits they provide
to full-time workers. In addition, in all but a handful of States, low-
wage workers are ineligible for benefits because their most recent
earnings are not counted. Part-time and low-wage workers pay into the
system, and they should be able to rely on it while searching for a new
job.
We must pass another extension of unemployment benefits before the
current one expires at the end of May. We must not allow a repeat of
last year, when Democrats asked eight times for an extension and eight
times were told no. Ultimately, we were able to work on a bipartisan
basis to provide benefits for out-of-work Americans, and I hope we can
do so again this time. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
see that Americans here at home who've been hit by these troubled
economic times receive the support they need and deserve.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of The
Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of which I am a proud cosponsor.
The purpose of this bill is to extend the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program, for an additional 6 months
through the end of November. Currently, extended umeployment insurance
benefits are scheduled to expire at the end of May. Beginning June
first, individuals whose regular unemployment benefits expire will no
longer be eligible for extended benefits.
Extending the existing unemployment insurance benefits program for an
additional 6 months is estimated to provide assistance to between 2 to
2.5 million working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault
of their own. This legislation also provides an additional 13 weeks of
benefits to unemployed workers who have already exhausted their
extended benefits prior to enactment and remain unable to find work.
The bill also provides tempory Federal funding, through July 2004, for
States to implement alternative base periods, which could a worker's
most recent wages when determining eligibility, and to allow displaced
part-income workers to seek part-time employment while receiving
unemployment insurance workers. Improving the unemployment insurance
system for part-time workers is important. A recent op-ed in the
Baltimore Sun makes the point that:
The old rationale for excluding part-time workers from
unemployment insurance eligibility was that part-time workers
were not working to support their families. But this is not
true today.
I am convinced that we are going to still be in very difficult shape
when the current extension of unemployment insurance benefits expires
at the end of May. There is little chance that the labor market will
significantly improve for unemployed workers between now and then.
There is growing evidence that the labor market is still in fact
deteriorating. The Federal Open Markets Committee's most recent
statement on interest rates concluded that, ``recent labor market
indicators have proven disappointing.''
That is an understatement. Last month the economy lost 108,000 jobs
in addition to losing 357,000 jobs in February. There are 1.8 million
workers who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks and are
looking for work but cannot find a job. The unemployment rate at 5.8
percent is higher today than when extended benefits were first enacted
in March, 2002. Over 3.48 million Americans are currently drawing
unemployment benefits. We have lost 2.6 million private sector jobs
since President Bush took office. No President in over 50 years has
failed to create jobs during a 4-year term in office, let alone lose
jobs during an administration. But it would take private sector job
creation of over 100,000 per month, every month, for the next 2 years,
in order for the economy to dig out of the jobs deficit created during
this administration.
Yet instead of abandoning the economic policies which have failed,
the administration continues to pursue the same fundamental policy--
large tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. The
administration, whose budget contained nothing to further extend the
unemployment benefits program, remains out of touch with today's
economic realities. Over 8.5 million Americans are unemployed and
looking for work but cannot find a job because there are no jobs to be
had. In situations like this the Congress has always provided extended
unemployment benefits. In the last recession these benefits were
provided for 29 months. During the recession before that, they lasted
for 33 months. In both of those recessions extended benefits were
discontinued only after a pronounced strengthening in the labor market.
Today these benefits are set to expire after only 15 months, well
before the labor market has improved. If this happens it will mark not
only a departure from prudent fiscal policy that has been implemented
in a bipartisan fashion in the past but will also harm economic growth
and hurt millions of Americans. Extended unemployment insurance
benefits, already enacted by the Congress, have assisted 4.7 million
workers and provided $12 billion of stimulus into the economy. Federal
Reserve Chairman Greenspan has testified that, ``extended unemployment
insurance provided a timely boost to disposable income.''
This legislation also allows for all Americans who qualify to receive
an additional 13 weeks of benefits. This would include the 1 million
workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits. These
workers need help. They want to find work but cannot find a job because
there are simply no jobs to be had.
I know that some of my colleagues oppose providing extended benefits
for more than 13 weeks to anyone. I have a differing viewpoint. I point
out that at this stage of the last recession, a minimum of 20 weeks of
additional Federal benefits were provided for all Americans in every
State. In the previous recession and jobless recovery extended
unemployment insurance benefits lasted for 29 months and for much of
that time provided benefits for 26 to 33 weeks. In this recession and
jobless recovery, benefits are scheduled to expire only after 15 months
and have provided only 13 weeks of extended benefits to the vast
majority of Americans.
[[Page S5385]]
Under normal circumstances with a growing labor market there is a
case to be made that providing too long of a duration of unemployment
insurance benefits would be harmful. However, in times when the labor
market is weak and the job base is shrinking, the situation is very
different. Even Fed Chairman Greenspan acknowledged this in testimony
before the Joint Economic Committee, stating: ``in periods like this [a
shrinking labor market], that the economic restraints on the
unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to be eased.''
Unfortunately, many are forecasting continued weaknesses in the labor
market.
Today's Washington Post reports that the International Monetary Fund
is forecasting economic growth of only 2.2 percent for the United
States in 2003, which the IMF's chief economist, Kenneth Rogoff noted
is ``not yet enough to make a meaningful dent in unemployment.'' The
article goes on to state that: ``the jobless rate stood last month at
5.8 percent, and the IMF projected that it will average 6.2 percent
this year.'' Considering the weak labor market that we face today and
the troubling forecasts for the remainder of the year, it appears to me
that we most certainly are in such a period as described by Chairman
Greenspan and that the restraints on the unemployment insurance system
ought to be eased. This legislation accomplishes this goal in a
fiscally responsible manner with an estimated cost of $16 billion,
which is below the unemployment insurance trust funds current surplus
of $20 billion.
Last year this issue was not properly dealt with, and as a result
millions of Americans suffered through the holiday season believing
that their benefits were going to expire. Yet when Congress reconvened,
extended benefits were retroactively restored, 11 days after they had
expired. Let's not put these people through this again. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation and to work expeditiously and
prudently to enact it before the current program expires, less than 8
weeks from today.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 924. A bill to authorize the exchange of lands between an Alaska
Native Village Corporation and the Department of the Interior, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak
about a small community in the southwestern part of my State of Alaska.
Newtok, a Village with about 300 Yupik Alaska Native residents, is
located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta near the Ninglick River. Erosion
from the Ninglick is slowly threatening Newtok, and the Village will be
under water in less than a decade and the Village airstrip in less
time. Once the Village airstrip--Newtok's only connection with the
outside world--is flooded, the Village will not be able to survive.
The Village is surrounded by land owned by the Federal Government in
the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge. In 1997 the Newtok Native Corporation
attempted to exchange land on higher ground with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, administratively, but these negotiations failed. Therefore,
action by Congress is required to ensure the future of Newtok and its
residents.
Today I am introducing legislation to begin the process of moving
Newtok to a location that is not threatened by erosion or flooding. The
Newtok Native Corporation has identified a 10,943 acre tract of land on
Nelson Island for the location of the new Village. Newtok Native
Corporation is willing to accept this land in the Yukon Delta Wildlife
Refuge from the Fish and Wildlife Service in exchange for a 996 acre
piece of land on Baird Inlet Island and another 11,105 acre plot
northeast of the present location of Newtok.
The Fish and Wildlife Service desires the Newtok owned land for
ecological reasons and Newtok needs the Federal land because of its
geology that keeps it safe from erosion. Both parties win in this
exchange; the Federal Government improves the Yukon Delta Wildlife
Refuge for the benefit of the American people, and villagers of Newtok
have the opportunity to move to a safe location and see that their
culture and community endure.
Newtok needs to be moved before it is too late, and my bill is an
important first step in the process of protecting this community.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 924
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that:
(1) The continued existence of the village of Newtok,
Alaska is threatened by the eroding banks of the Ninglick
River.
(2) A relocation of the village will become necessary for
the health and safety of the residents of Newtok within the
next 8 years.
(3) Lands previously conveyed to the Newtok Native
Corporation contain habitat of high value for waterfowl.
(4) An opportunity exists for an exchange of lands between
the Newtok Native Corporation and the Yukon Delta National
Wildlife Refuge that would address the relocation needs of
the village while enhancing the quality of waterfowl habitat
within the boundaries of the Refuge.
(5) An exchange of lands between Newtok and the United
States on an other than equal value basis pursuant to the
terms of this Act is in the public interest.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act, the term--
(1) ``ANCSA'' means the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
(2) ``ANILCA'' means the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 410hh-3233, 43 USC 1602 et
seq.);
(3) ``Calista'' means the Calista Corporation, an Alaska
Native Regional Corporation established pursuant to ANCSA;
(4) ``Identified Lands'' means approximately 10,943 acres
of lands (including surface and subsurface) designated as
``Proposed Village Site'' upon a map entitled ``Proposed
Newtok Exchange,'' dated September, 2002, and available for
inspection in the Anchorage office of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service;
(5) ``limited warranty deed'' means a warranty deed which
is, with respect to its warranties, limited to that portion
of the chain of title from the moment of conveyance from the
United States to Newtok to and including the moment at which
such title is validly reconveyed to the United States of
America and its assigns;
(6) ``Newtok'' means the Newtok Native Corporation, an
Alaska Native Village Corporation established pursuant to
ANCSA;
(7) ``Newtok lands'' means approximately 12,101 acres of
surface estate comprising conveyed lands and selected lands
identified as Aknerkochik on the map referred to in paragraph
(4) and that surface estate selected by Newtok on Baird Inlet
Island as shown on said map; and
(8) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 3. LANDS TO BE EXCHANGED.
(a) Lands Exchanged to the United States.--If, within 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, Newtok
expresses to the Secretary in writing its intent to enter
into a land exchange with the United States, the Secretary
shall accept from Newtok a valid, unencumbered conveyance, by
limited warranty deed, of the Newtok lands previously
conveyed to Newtok. The Secretary shall also accept from
Newtok a relinquishment of irrevocable prioritized selections
for approximately 4,956 acres for those validly selected
lands not yet conveyed to Newtok. The reconveyance of lands
by Newtok to the United States and the prioritized,
relinquished selections shall be 1.1 times the number of
acres conveyed to Newtok under this Act. The number of acres
reconveyed to the United States and the prioritized,
relinquished selections shall be charged to the entitlement
of Newtok.
(b) Lands Exchanged to Newtok.--In exchange for the Newtok
lands conveyed and selections relinquished under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall, subject to valid existing rights
and notwithstanding section 14(f) of ANCSA, convey to Newtok
the surface and subsurface estate of the Identified Lands.
The conveyance shall be by interim conveyance. Subsequent to
the interim conveyance, the Secretary shall survey the
Identified Lands at no cost to Newtok and issue a patent to
the Identified Lands subject to the provisions of ANCSA and
this Act. At the time of survey the charge against Newtok's
entitlement for acres conveyed or irrevocable priorities
relinquished by Newtok may be adjusted to conform to the
standard of 1.1 acres relinquished by Newtok for each one
acre received.
SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE.
(a) Timing.--The Secretary shall issue interim conveyances
pursuant to subsection 3(b) at the earliest possible time
after acceptance of the Newtok conveyance and relinquishment
of selections under subsection 3(a).
(b) Relationship to ANCSA.--Lands conveyed to Newtok under
this Act shall be deemed to have been conveyed under the
provisions of ANCSA, except that the provisions of 14(c) of
ANCSA shall not apply to these lands, and to the extent that
section 22(g) of ANCSA would otherwise be applicable to these
lands, the provisions of 22(g) of ANCSA shall also not apply
to these lands. Consistent with section 103(c) of ANILCA,
these lands shall not be deemed to be included as a portion
of the Yukon National Wildlife Refuge and shall not be
subject to regulations applicable solely to public lands
within this Conservation System Unit.
[[Page S5386]]
(c) Effect on Entitlement.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to change the total acreage of land to which Newtok
is entitled under ANCSA.
(d) Effect on Newtok Lands.--The Newtok Lands shall be
included in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge as of
the date of acceptance of the conveyance of those lands from
Newtok, except that residents of the Village of Newtok,
Alaska, shall retain access rights to subsistence resources
on those public lands as guaranteed under ANILCA section 811
(16 U.S.C. 3121), and to subsistence uses, such as
traditional subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering,
consistent with ANILCA section 803 (16 U.S.C. 3113).
(e) Adjustment to Calista Corporation ANCSA Entitlement for
Relinquished Newtok Selections.--To the extent that Calista
subsurface rights are affected by this Act, Calista shall be
entitled to an equivalent acreage of in-lieu subsurface
entitlement for the Newtok selections relinquished in the
exchange as set forth in subsection 3(a) of this Act. This
additional entitlement shall come from subsurface lands
already selected by Calista, but which have not been
conveyed. If Calista does not have sufficient subsurface
selections to accommodate this additional entitlement,
Calista Corporation is hereby authorized to make an
additional in lieu selection for the deficient acreage.
(f) Adjustment to Exchange.--If requested by Newtok, the
Secretary is authorized to consider and make adjustments to
the original exchange to meet the purposes of this Act,
subject to all the same terms and conditions of this Act.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S.J. Res. 12. A joint resolution recognizing the Dr. Samuel D. Harris
National Museum of Dentistry located at 31 South Greene Street in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of dentistry in
the United States; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation,
together with Senator Mikulski, to recognize the Dr. Samuel D. Harris
National Museum of Dentistry, in Baltimore, as the official national
museum of dentistry in the United States.
The principal purpose of this legislation is to help educate the
public about the critical importance of oral health to the overall
health of all Americans. Three years ago, United States Surgeon General
David Satcher issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Oral Health in
America,'' which identified the problem of dental and oral disease as a
``silent epidemic'' facing the country. The report found that tooth
decay is the most common chronic childhood disease, which often
interferes with vital functions such as eating, swallowing, and speech.
Children around the country miss an estimated 51 million hours of
school each year due to dental illness. Despite Federal law mandating
that children eligible for Medicaid be given access to dental services,
fewer than one in five of these children actually receive dental care.
In addition, close to one in four Americans between the ages of 65 and
74 were found to suffer from periodontal disease, and over 8,000 men
and women die from oral and pharyngeal cancers each year.
The report called for the development of a National Oral Health Plan,
and recommended that actions be taken to ``change perceptions regarding
oral health and disease so that oral health becomes an accepted
component of general health.'' By designating an official national
museum and learning center dedicated to dentistry, this legislation
takes an important step toward the achievement of this goal.
The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National museum of Dentistry is the largest
and most comprehensive museum of dentistry in this country, and,
indeed, the world. An affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the
Museum sits on the grounds of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery,
founded in 1840 as the world's first dental college. Many of the
museum's permanent exhibits come directly from the College's vast
historical collections. Housed in a building that served as the
University of Maryland Dental Department from 1904 to 1929, the Museum
is located directly adjacent to historic Davidge Hall, the Western
Hemisphere's oldest medical building in continuous use.
In 1992, a retired pediatric dentist, Dr. Samuel D. Harris of
Detroit, contributed $1 million of his personal funds toward the
development of the Museum. He has since made further considerable gifts
to the Museum's endowment, reaffirming his belief that education is the
hallmark of preventive oral care. The Museum's name honors both his
generosity and his mission.
With over 7,000 square feet of exhibit space, the Museum showcases
the people, objects, and events that created and defined the dental
profession, including one of George Washington's famed ivory dentures.
The Museum's vast archives also act as an important resource for
research and serious academic study of dentistry's past, with a unique
collection of historical dental journals and other one-of-a-kind
documents. Included in these collections are the first known dental
degree and dental license.
While its informative presentation of dentistry's history constitutes
an important part of the Museum's exhibitions, its mission extends much
further, with the ultimate goal of educating the public about the
critical importance of oral health. The Museum's interactive exhibits
make it particularly effective in this regard, and over 26,000 students
have benefited from the Museum's vigorous educational programs since
its opening in 1996.
By designating the Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as
the official national museum of dentistry, we will not only recognize
the critical role that dentists and oral health professionals have
played in the history of our Nation's health care system, but enhance
awareness and understanding of the importance of dentistry to public
health.
The Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry has been endorsed
by the American Dental Association, the American Association of Dental
Schools, Oral Health America, the Pierre Fauchard Academy, the American
College of Dentists, the International College of Dentists, and the
American Academy of the History of Dentistry. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of a letter from the American Dental Association in
support of this legislation be printed in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
American Dental Association
Washington, DC, March 12, 2003.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the 147,000 members of
the American Dental Association, we write to express our
strong support for your resolution to recognize the Dr.
Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, located in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of
dentistry in the United States.
As the most comprehensive dental museum in the world, it is
a national and international resource whose primary mission
is to educate people, especially children, about the history
of dentistry and the importance of good oral hygiene. The
museum uses state-of-the-art, interactive exhibitions and
expert presentations to deliver the message that oral health
is important to achieve overall health. Currently, the museum
is displaying an exhibit entitled, ``The Future is Now!
African Americans in Dentistry.''
The museum is affiliated with the University of Maryland at
Baltimore, home of the world's first dental school, founded
in 1840. it contains hundreds of interesting and significant
dental artifacts, not the least of which is George
Washington's dentures. It also serves as a national center of
learning with an extensive library from which scholars may
study the evolution of dental treatment and learn of the
numerous accomplishments of the dental profession over the
years.
The museum is endorsed by the American Dental Association,
National Dental Association, American Dental Education
Association, American College of Dentists, International
College of Dentists, and the American Academy of the History
of Dentistry among others.
Thank you for recognizing the museum, which is truly a
national treasure.
Sincerely,
T. Howard Jones, D.M.D.,
President.
James B. Bramson, D.D.S.,
Executive Director.
____________________