[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10142-S10153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1480. A bill to amend the Buy American Act to increase the 
requirement for American-made content, to tighten the waiver 
provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs 
procurement by the federal government. The name of the act accurately 
and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the federal 
government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying 
American-made goods.
  While I a strong supporter of the act, I am concerned that, through 
abuse of its 5 broad waivers, the spirit--if not the letter--of the act 
is being weakened time and again.
  It only makes sense, Mr. President, for the federal government to 
make every effort to purchase goods that are made in America. A law 
requiring this common-sense approach should not be necessary. 
Unfortunately, this law is necessary, and the way in which its many 
loopholes are being used also makes strengthening it necessary.
  I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made 
goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. This Congress 
should do more to ensure that the federal government adheres to this 
sentiment by enforcing and strengthening the provisions of the Buy 
American Act.
  As we all know the United States manufacturing industry is 
hemorrhaging, as jobs and companies move overseas or are lost all 
together. According to the AFL-CIO, the United States has lost more 
than 2.4 million manufacturing jobs since April 1998. This disturbing 
trend is of particular concern in my home state of Wisconsin.
  A March 2003 report by the Wisconsin State Department of Workforce 
Development notes that ``a combination of weak domestic and global 
demand, mergers and consolidations, automation, globalization of 
operations, and uncertainty surrounding war have caused employment in 
Wisconsin's manufacturing sector to shrink in recent years.'' The 
Department found that there were 594,100 manufacturing jobs in 
Wisconsin in 2000, and the Department estimates that this figure had 
dropped to 517,100 jobs by June of this year. More than 77,000 jobs 
lost in just 2\1/2\ years, Mr. President. And the people of my state 
can expect more of the same during the rest of this decade if we don't 
take action soon.
  While the Department expects some sectors to experience an upturn by 
2010, it estimates that the people of my state can still expect to lose 
thousands more manufacturing jobs by 2010.
  Much of this can be blamed on flawed trade agreements that the United 
States has entered into in recent years. The trade policy of this 
country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade 
agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of 
key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear 
evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will 
only aggravate this problem
  This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut 
our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford 
to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the 
environment, and for our public health and safety. And we cannot afford 
to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements 
that supercede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic 
institutions.
  I will be introducing legislation in the near future to address that 
problem directly by establishing minimum standards for the trade 
agreements into which our nation enters. That measure is a companion to 
a resolution that will be introduced in the other body by my colleague 
from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Regrettably, some of the blame for the dire situation in which 
American manufacturing finds itself also lies in our own federal tax 
and procurement policies, some of which actually encourage American 
companies to move or incorporate abroad. The Buy American law was 
enacted 70 years ago to ensure that Federal procurement policies 
support American jobs.
  Some argue that the Buy American Act has outlived its usefulness in 
today's global economy. I argue that it is as relevant today as it was 
when it was enacted in 1933. The passage of 70 years has not diminished 
the importance of this Act for American manufacturing companies or for 
those who are employed in this crucial sector of our economy. In fact, 
a strong argument can be made that this Act is even more necessary 
today than it was 70 years ago. With American jobs heading overseas at 
an alarming rate, the Government should be doing all it can to make 
sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to support American jobs.
  Some argue that the Buy American Act is protectionist and anti-free 
trade. I disagree. Supporting American industry is not protectionist--
it is common sense. The erosion of our manufacturing base needs to be 
stopped, and Congress should support procurement and trade policies 
that help to ensure that we do not continue to lose portions of this 
vital segment of our economy.
  The legislation that I introduce today, the Buy American Improvement 
Act, would strengthen the existing Act by tightening existing waivers 
and would require that information be provided to Congress and to the 
American people about how often the provisions of this Act are waived 
by Federal departments and agencies.
  As I noted earlier, there are currently five primary waivers in the 
Buy American Act. The first allows an agency head to waive the Act's 
provisions if a determination is made that complying with the Act would 
be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this 
waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with 
the public interest'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives broad 
discretion to department  secretaries and agency heads. My bill would 
clarify this so-called ``public interest'' waiver provision to prohibit 
it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request 
for procurement (RFP) has been published in the Federal Register. Once 
the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be 
able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to 
do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy

[[Page S10143]]

American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance 
of placing a procurement up for bid.

  The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency 
determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is 
``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist 
in making this determination. My bill would amend this waiver to 
require that preference be given to the American company if that 
company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if 
the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be 
procured.
  I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the 
most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I 
don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is 
``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees 
to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a 
contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should 
make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by 
the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have 
been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.
  The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the 
Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. 
There is no question that there will be occasions when the Federal 
Government will need to procure items quickly that will be used outside 
the United States, such as in a time of war. However, items that are 
bought on a regular basis and are used at foreign military bases or 
United States embassies, for example, could reasonably be procured from 
domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. 
My bill would require an analysis of the difference in cost for 
obtaining articles, materials, or supplies that are used on a regular 
basis outside the United States, or that are not needed on an immediate 
basis, from an American company, including the cost of shipping, and a 
foreign company before issuing a waiver and awarding the contract to a 
foreign company.
  The fourth waiver allowed under the Buy American Act states that the 
domestic source requirements of the Act may be waived if the articles 
to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient 
and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory 
quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, 
prior to issuing such as waiver, conduct a study that determines that 
domestic production cannot be initiated to meet the procurement needs 
and that a comparable article, material, or supply is not available 
from an American company.
  The newest Buy American Act waiver, which was enacted in 1994, 
exempts purchases of less than $2,500 from the domestic source 
requirements of the Act. While this waiver is not addressed in my bill, 
I have requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a study of 
this so-called ``micro purchase'' exemption, including how often it is 
used and its impact on American businesses.
  My bill also strengthens the Buy American Act in four other ways.
  First, it expands annual reporting requirements regarding the use of 
waivers that currently apply only to the Department of Defense to 
include all Federal departments and agencies. My bill specifies that 
these reports should include an itemized list of waivers, including the 
items procured, their dollar value, and their source. In addition, 
these reports would have to be made available on the Internet.
  The bill also increases the minimum American-made content standard 
for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 
percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product 
has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American-
made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a 
source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The 
current 50 percent standard should be raised to a 75 percent minimum.
  My bill also addresses the crucial issue of dual-use technologies and 
efforts to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists or 
countries of concern. My bill would prohibit the awarding of a contract 
or sub-contract to a foreign company to manufacture goods containing 
any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control 
List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the 
Export Administration Act process.
  Finally, my bill would require the General Accounting Office to 
report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms 
``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for 
purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am 
concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can 
be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be 
required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of 
these terms, as well as on establishing a consistent waiver process 
that can be used by all Federal agencies.
  I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad array of 
business and labor groups including: Save American Manufacturing, the 
U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Milwaukee Valve Company, and the 
National and Wisconsin AFL-CIO.
  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. 1480

       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 ``Buy American Improvement Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR WAIVERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
        ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Special Rules.--The following rules shall apply in 
     carrying out the provisions of subsection (a):
       ``(1) Public interest waiver.--A determination that it is 
     not in the public interest to enter into a contract in 
     accordance with this Act may not be made after a notice of 
     solicitation of offers for the contract is published in 
     accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).
       ``(2) Domestic bidder.--A Federal agency entering into a 
     contract shall give preference to a company submitting an 
     offer on the contract that manufactures in the United States 
     the article, material, or supply for which the offer is 
     solicited, if--
       ``(A) that company's offer is substantially the same as an 
     offer made by a company that does not manufacture the 
     article, material, or supply in the United States; or
       ``(B) that company is the only company that manufactures in 
     the United States the article, material, or supply for which 
     the offer is solicited.
       ``(3) Use outside the United States.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall apply without 
     regard to whether the articles, materials, or supplies to be 
     acquired are for use outside the United States if the 
     articles, materials, or supplies are not needed on an urgent 
     basis or if they are acquired on a regular basis.
       ``(B) Cost analysis.--In any case where the articles, 
     materials, or supplies are to be acquired for use outside the 
     United States and are not needed on an urgent basis, before 
     entering into a contract an analysis shall be made of the 
     difference in the cost for acquiring the articles, materials, 
     or supplies from a company manufacturing the articles, 
     materials, or supplies in the United States (including the 
     cost of shipping) and the cost for acquiring the articles, 
     materials, or supplies from a company manufacturing the 
     articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States 
     (including the cost of shipping).
       ``(4) Domestic availability.--The head of a Federal agency 
     may not make a determination under subsection (a) that an 
     article, material, or supply is not mined, produced, or 
     manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States in 
     sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and 
     of satisfactory quality, unless the head of the agency has 
     conducted a study and, on the basis of such study, determined 
     that--
       ``(A) domestic production cannot be initiated to meet the 
     procurement needs; and
       ``(B) a comparable article, material, or supply is not 
     available from a company in the United States.
       ``(c) Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year, the head of each Federal agency shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the amount of the acquisitions 
     made by the agency from entities that manufacture the 
     articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States in 
     that fiscal year.

[[Page S10144]]

       ``(2) Content of report.--The report required by paragraph 
     (1) shall separately indicate the following information:
       ``(A) The dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies for which this Act was waived.
       ``(B) An itemized list of all waivers granted with respect 
     to such articles, materials, or supplies under this Act.
       ``(C) A list of all articles, materials, and supplies 
     acquired, their source, and the amount of the acquisitions.
       ``(3) Public availability.--The head of each Federal agency 
     submitting a report under paragraph (1) shall make the report 
     publicly available by posting on an Internet website.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 1 of the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10c) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Federal Agency.--The term `Federal agency' means any 
     executive agency (as defined in section 4(1) of the Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1))) or any 
     establishment in the legislative or judicial branch of the 
     Government (except the Senate, the House of Representatives, 
     and the Architect of the Capitol and activities under the 
     Architect's direction).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Substantially All.--Articles, materials, or supplies 
     shall be treated as made substantially all from articles, 
     materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as 
     the case may be, in the United States, if the cost of the 
     domestic components of such articles, materials, or supplies 
     exceeds 75 percent.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) is 
     amended by striking ``department or independent 
     establishment'' and inserting ``Federal agency''.
       (2) Section 3 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``department or independent establishment'' 
     in subsection (a), and inserting ``Federal agency''; and
       (B) by striking ``department, bureau, agency, or 
     independent establishment'' in subsection (b) and inserting 
     ``Federal agency''.
       (3) Section 633 of the National Military Establishment 
     Appropriations Act, 1950 (41 U.S.C. 10d) is amended by 
     striking ``department or independent establishment'' and 
     inserting ``Federal agency''.

     SEC. 3. GAO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Scope of Waivers.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall report to Congress recommendations for 
     determining, for purposes of applying the waiver provision of 
     section 2(a) of the Buy American Act--
       (1) unreasonable cost; and
       (2) inconsistent with the public interest.

     The report shall include recommendations for a statutory 
     definition of unreasonable cost and standards for determining 
     inconsistency with the public interest.
       (b) Waiver Procedures.--The report described in subsection 
     (a) shall also include recommendations for establishing 
     procedures for applying the waiver provisions of the Buy 
     American Act that can be consistently applied.

     SEC. 4. DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES.

       The head of a Federal agency (as defined in section 1(c) of 
     the Buy American Act (as amended by section 2) may not enter 
     into a contract, nor permit a subcontract under a contract of 
     the Federal agency, with a foreign entity that involves 
     giving the foreign entity plans, manuals, or other 
     information that would facilitate the manufacture of a dual-
     use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for 
     providing such plans, manuals, or information has been 
     obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.) and 
     the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. part 730 et 
     seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 1481. A bill to prohibit the application of the trade authorities 
procedures with respect to implementing bills that contain provisions 
regarding the entry of aliens; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional 
Responsibility for Immigration Act, a bill to deny fast-track 
procedures to trade agreements that include immigration provisions. We 
have witnessed outrage in both parties and in both houses of Congress 
to the inclusion of ``temporary entry'' provisions in the Free Trade 
Agreements (``FTAs''), with Chile and Singapore. Members of the House 
and Senate Judiciary Committees, along with other concerned Members, 
have stated clearly that they never again want to see trade agreements 
that include immigration provisions. This bill will allow us to do more 
than rely on the vague assurances that the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative has offered in response to our strongly-held concerns--
it will provide a major deterrent that should prevent this 
Administration and future Administrations from ignoring Congress' 
authority over immigration policy. I am pleased that Senator 
Feinstein--who has led the fight against the inclusions of immigration 
provisions in the Chile and Singapore agreements--Senator Jeffords, and 
Senator Kennedy have joined me in introducing this bill.
  This bill is simple and straightforward. It states that whenever the 
Senate considers legislation to implement a free trade agreement, any 
Senator could raise a point of order against the bill on the grounds 
that it includes an immigration provision. If the point of order were 
upheld, the bill would have to be considered under ordinary procedures, 
allowing us to amend it and strike provisions that violated our 
constitutional authority over immigration. Succeeding Administrations 
have told us for decades that they simply cannot pursue trade 
agreements without ``fast-track'' authority, and Congress has chosen to 
give that authority to the Executive Branch. Having surrendered some of 
our power, however, we must be all the more vigilant in ensuring that 
this surrender remains limited in scope.
  It has been widely reported that the USTR considers the ``temporary 
entry'' provisions in the Chile and Singapore agreements to be models 
for future agreements. I have criticized those provisions because I 
share the concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, 
Sessions and others that the United States Trade Representative should 
not be in the business of amending domestic immigration laws, as these 
treaties do. The decision to include immigration provisions was not 
only unauthorized but also unnecessary to achieve the Administration's 
stated goals. Congress has already created the H-1B program, which 
allows foreign workers with specialized skills to work in the United 
States. That program was established after a lengthy process of public 
hearings, debate, and negotiation, and it has worked to help meet labor 
shortages and strengthen our economy. If the Administration feels that 
the program needs to be changed, or a new visa category created, it 
should have sought to do so through the ordinary legislative process.
  By including immigration provisions in trade agreements, the 
Executive Branch not only usurps Congress' authority to create 
programs, but also to amend them if they prove to be unsuccessful. Any 
amendments that Congress makes to immigration policies that are made 
through trade agreements are subject to challenge as violations of 
those agreements. As a result, our hands are tied not just at the time 
of the negotiation, but for all future legislative activity as well. 
This is simply unacceptable--it was not the purpose of our trade 
agreements and it is neither a wise nor a constitutionally appropriate 
means of creating our immigration policy. We must pass this bill and 
restore our proper separation of powers.
  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. 1481

       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 ``Congressional Responsibility 
     for Immigration Act''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON TRADE AUTHORITIES PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, section 2103(b)(3) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion 
     Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b)(3)) and the 
     provisions of section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2191) (trade authorities procedures) shall not apply to any 
     bill implementing a trade agreement between the United States 
     and any other country, if the implementing bill contains any 
     provision relating to the immigration laws of the United 
     States or the entry of aliens.
       (b) Point of Order in Senate.--
       (1) In general.--When the Senate is considering an 
     implementing bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator against any part of the implementing bill that 
     contains material in violation of subsection (a), and the 
     point of order is sustained by the Presiding Officer, the 
     Senate shall cease consideration of the implementing bill 
     under the procedures described in subsection (a).
       (2) Waivers and appeals.--
       (A) Waivers.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on a point 
     of order described in paragraph (1), any Senator may move to 
     waive the point of order and the motion to waive

[[Page S10145]]

     shall not be subject to amendment. A point of order described 
     in paragraph (1) is waived only by the affirmative vote of a 
     majority of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
       (B) Appeals.--After the Presiding Officer rules on a point 
     of order under this paragraph, any Senator may appeal the 
     ruling of the Presiding Officer on the point of order as it 
     applies to some or all of the provisions on which the 
     Presiding Officer ruled. A ruling of the Presiding Officer on 
     a point of order described in paragraph (1) is sustained 
     unless a majority of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen 
     and sworn, vote not to sustain the ruling.
       (C) Debate.--Debate on a motion to waive under subparagraph 
     (A) or on an appeal of the ruling of the Presiding Officer 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be limited to 1 hour. The time 
     shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate, or 
     their designees.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 1482. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for business meals 
and entertainment; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal 
the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and 
entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent 
gradually over a five-year period. I am joined by my good friends, 
Senators Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran, as cosponsors of this measure. 
Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small 
and independent businesses as well as the food service, travel, 
tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. 
These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 
percent tax deduction.
  The business meals and entertainment expenses deduction was reduced 
from 80 percent to 50 percent in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Its results have been 
detrimental to small businesses, the self-employed, and independent and 
traveling sales representatives. Research conducted by the National 
Restaurant Association (NRA) indicates that the great majority of 
business meal users are small businesses and of such businesses, one-
fifth are self employed. On an average, business meal costs for small 
businesses is less than $15 per lunch. These groups rely on one-on-one 
meetings, usually during meals, for their marketing strategy, and the 
reduction of the business meals and entertainment deduction has 
impacted their marketing efforts.
  An increase in the meal deduction would have a significant impact on 
the overall economy. Accompanying my statement is the NRA's State-by-
State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the 
business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA 
estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal 
sales by $6 billion and create a $13 billion increase to the overall 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA's State-by-State 
chart and 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:

   ESTIMATED IMPACT OF INCREASING BUSINESS MEAL DEDUCTIBILITY FROM 50
                          PERCENT TO 80 PERCENT
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Increase in
                                              business meal     Total
                                               spending--50    economic
                    State                     percent to 80   impact in
                                                 percent      the state
                                              deductibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................           $79          $163
Alaska......................................            17            29
Arizona.....................................           116           229
Arkansas....................................            43            85
California..................................           856         1,896
Colorado....................................           120           259
Connecticut.................................            76           143
Delaware....................................            21            37
District of Columbia........................            29            38
Florida.....................................           333           680
Georgia.....................................           198           443
Hawaii......................................            41            79
Idaho.......................................            23            46
Illinois....................................           293           688
Indiana.....................................           130           267
Iowa........................................            51           108
Kansas......................................            50           102
Kentucky....................................            90           180
Louisiana...................................            91           177
Maine.......................................            25            48
Maryland....................................           115           239
Massachusetts...............................           190           378
Michigan....................................           210           409
Minnesota...................................           113           255
Mississippi.................................            44            84
Missouri....................................           119           271
Montana.....................................            19            34
Nebraska....................................            35            71
Nevada......................................            66           116
New Hampshire...............................            31            57
New Jersey..................................           168           350
New Mexico..................................            36            68
New York....................................           396           774
North Carolina..............................           188           394
North Dakota................................            12            22
Ohio........................................           250           547
Oklahoma....................................            67           143
Oregon......................................            82           170
Pennsylvania................................           242           537
Rhode Island................................            27            50
South Carolina..............................            89           177
South Dakota................................            15            30
Tennessee...................................           130           285
Texas.......................................           499         1,165
Utah........................................            41            88
Vermont.....................................            12            22
Virginia....................................           146           308
Washington..................................           172           349
West Virginia...............................            28            49
Wisconsin...................................           106           228
Wyoming.....................................            10            16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Restaurant Association estimates.

                                S. 1482

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND 
                   ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
     entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``the applicable 
     percentage''.
       (b) Applicable Percentage.--Section 274(n) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the term `applicable percentage' means the percentage 
     determined under the following table:

``For taxable years beginning in calendarThe applicable percentage is--
  2001..........................................................68 ....

  2002..........................................................74 ....

  2003 or thereafter.........................................80.''.....

       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``Only 50 percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Edwards, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 1483. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to reauthorize that Act, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my 
colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions, Senator Kennedy, and Senators Harkin, Mikulski, 
Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Edwards, Clinton, Rockefeller and 
Daschle in introducing the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination 
Act.
  Let's be clear about one fact: Head Start works. More than 21 million 
children have gone through Head Start since the program began in 1965 
and currently around 900,000 children are enrolled.
  Head Start has to be one of the most studied of all Federal programs. 
But, with each study, there is no question about the results--Head 
Start children are learning. Could they learn more? Could they make 
greater gains? That's what our bill is about.
  Our bill has four basic points. Our bill will: strengthen the Head 
Start workforce by requiring stronger Head Start teacher credentials 
and wages more comparable to public school pre-kindergarten and 
kindergarten children; improve Head Start's academic focus, 
particularly instruction in preliteracy; expand Head Start to all 
eligible preschool children by 2008, including serving 200,000 infants 
and toddlers through Early Head Start by 2008; and, promote better 
coordination across all early care and education programs in every 
State.
  The biggest problem today with Head Start is not the children Head 
Start serves, but the children who are left behind--those who are not 
participating in a Head Start program.
  While the majority of Head Start children enter the program below 
national language and literacy norms for all children of similar ages, 
about 25 percent of children entering Head Start are extremely behind 
their peers. For these children, Head Start is a particularly important 
jump start to build school readiness skills.
  If our goal is to help Head Start children make even greater gains 
than

[[Page S10146]]

they are currently making, then we need to raise the educational 
credentials of Head Start teachers. We require that within 3 years, all 
newly hired Head Start teachers must either have an Associate's degree 
or become enrolled in a program leading to an AA degree within a year 
from when they're hired. In addition, we require a teacher with a 
Bachelor's degree in every classroom over the next 8 years.
  Currently, over half of State-funded pre-kindergarten programs 
require a teacher with a BA. We should require no less for Head Start 
children.
  Unlike the House bill, we provide additional funding to meet this 
stronger teacher requirement--in fact, $3 billion over 5 years. The 
average Head Start annual salary is about $20,000. The average annual 
salary for a kindergarten teacher is $43,000. If we do not raise Head 
Start teacher salaries to be more in line with public school pre-
kindergarten and kindergarten salaries, Head Start programs will never 
be able to attract and retain a stronger workforce.
  Next, we improve the academic focus of Head Start. We require Head 
Start programs to align their curriculum and classroom practice with 
local school districts and state school readiness standards. We require 
every Head Start teacher to have on-going training in literacy 
instruction. And, we provide funds for more books for Head Start 
classrooms so that each classroom can truly be a literature-rich 
environment.
  While the House bill does not even include enough funding to keep 
pace with inflation, our bill expands Head Start to all eligible 
preschoolers by 2008. In addition, we double the current setaside for 
Early Head Start from 10 percent of Head Start funding to 20 percent. 
To me, the earlier we can reach these children, the greater the 
likelihood that they can make even greater gains than current children, 
who, for the most part enter Head Start as 4 year-olds.
  Last, this bill will promote better coordination across all early 
care and education programs in every state--without a block grant. We 
require that every state designate or create an advisory council on 
early care and education. The council will issue a report to serve as a 
roadmap for how States can better coordinate various early childhood 
programs and services.
  An expanded State Head Start Collaboration office would work with the 
advisory council to ensure that Head Start fits into the big picture 
set by the state for early childhood education.
  Children in Head Start can learn more. But, they can't learn more 
unless we require a stronger workforce and unless we invest the 
resources necessary to attract and retain that workforce. While I agree 
that we need to strengthen the literacy focus of Head Start, we cannot 
do it unless every Head Start teacher is provided with literacy 
training.
  The Administration and House Republicans believe that we need a block 
grant to promote coordination and collaboration. I disagree. The block 
grant serves only to weaken the comprehensive services offered by every 
Head Start program.
  Tell the 208,000 children who needed dental treatment, the 71,000 who 
needed speech and language help, the 21,961 who had developmental 
delays, the 47,280 who needed treatment for asthma, the 25,869 who had 
vision problems, and the 20,260 who had hearing problems, that they did 
not need the comprehensive services provided by Head Start.
  Doctors don't water down medicine that's working, and neither should 
we when it comes to Head Start. But clearly House Republicans have 
chosen expediency over bipartisanship. That's wrong.
  Our bill, the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act, will 
further improve Head Start, without weakening the comprehensive 
services that Head Start children need.
  While we look forward to working with House and Senate Republicans in 
an effort to craft a bipartisan bill, we also wish to emphasize that we 
hold certain fundamental beliefs about Head Start that are in our bill 
and should be part of any final bill.
  Last night my colleague, Senator Alexander, introduced legislation to 
promote better coordination and the creation of Head Start Centers of 
Excellence. His interest and creativity help stake a marker for basic 
principles that in addition to my bill should be part of any final 
bill. I agree with my colleague that there is consensus around 
improving school readiness, improving coordination, and increasing 
accountability. I look forward to working with Senator Alexander and 
Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee and others who joined with me today in drafting a 
bipartisan bill to promote the strongest start possible for low income 
children prior to beginning kindergarten.
  In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, now is not the time to 
leave Head Start children behind.
  I ask unanimous consent that a short summary of the legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act

       Brief Summary: Head Start works. The Head Start School 
     Readiness and Coordination Act will help Head Start work 
     better. The Act strengthens the Head Start workforce by 
     requiring stronger education credentials for Head Start 
     teachers and wages more comparable to public school pre-
     kindergarten and kindergarten teachers; improves Head Start's 
     academic focus, particularly in preliteracy instruction; 
     expands Head Start to more children, including more younger 
     children through the expansion of Early Head Start; and, 
     promotes better coordination across all early care and 
     education programs in the State.


                     Expands Head Start Enrollment

       Expands access to all eligible 3 and 4 year olds by 2008.
       Serves over 200,000 infants and toddlers a year by 2008.
       Increases funds for migrant Head Start programs from 4 
     percent annually to 5 percent.
       Increases funds for tribal Head Start programs from 3 
     percent annually to 4 percent.


                  strengthens the head start workforce

       Within 3 years, requires all newly hired teachers to have 
     an Associate degree, or be enrolled in a program leading to 
     an AA degree within 1 year of hire.
       Requires a teacher with a Bachelor's degree in every 
     classroom by 2008.
       Provides the resources necessary to attract and retain a 
     more educated workforce and to enable current Head Start 
     teachers to go back to school.


   Strengthens Head Start's Academic Focus, Particularly Pre-literacy

       Requires all Head Start teachers to receive on-going 
     training in literacy.
       Requires Head Start programs to align curriculum and 
     classroom practice with local school districts and state 
     school readiness standards.
       Provides funds to increase the number of books in Head 
     Start classrooms, promote partnerships with libraries, and 
     foster books in the homes of Head Start children.


          Improves Head Start's Coordination and Collaboration

       Expands State Head Start Quality Improvement and 
     Collaboration offices to better coordinate Head Start with 
     other early childhood programs.
       Promotes flexibility for Head Start to reach more children 
     from working poor families.


   promotes better coordination across All Early care and education 
                                programs

       Requires States to designate or establish an advisory 
     council on early care and education to review a State's 
     overall needs for children from birth to school entry.
       Allows States to administer Head Start training and 
     technical assistance to better comply with Head Start 
     performance standards and to promote professional development 
     among Head Start teachers and other early care providers, if 
     supplemented by the States.
       Involves States as a member of the team monitoring and 
     reviewing Head Start Performance and allows States to 
     designate new Head Start agencies.


                   Improves head start accountability

       Requires Head Start programs to conduct an annual review, 
     with a team that includes a representative from the local 
     school district, the State, and the HHS regional office.
       Allows the Secretary of HHS to conduct periodic unannounced 
     monitoring visits.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Dodd 
and other colleagues in introducing the Head Start Coordination and 
School Readiness Act. Our goal is to reauthorize Head Start and 
continue this very successful federal program to prepare low-income 
children for school.
  For nearly four decades, Head Start has enabled vulnerable, young 
pre-kindergarten children to enter school ready to learn. It provides a 
balanced educational curriculum to see that children develop early 
skills in reading, writing, and math, and positive social skills as 
well. It provides visits to doctors and dentists, and nutritious

[[Page S10147]]

meals to see that children are healthy. It provides outreach to parents 
to encourage them to participate actively in their child's early 
development.
  It is clear that Head Start works. A federal evaluation found that 
Head Start children make gains during the program itself, and the gains 
continue when the children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children 
complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 
100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, 
and 92 in early math.
  In this legislation, we build on Head Start's proven track record and 
expand it to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet 
served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start 
with state programs for low-income children. We strengthen Head Start's 
focus on school readiness and pre-literacy. We increase the education 
requirements and compensation for Head Start teachers. We provide 
greater accountability, including a high quality assessment of each 
Head Start program.
  To strengthen Head Start, we have to begin by providing more 
resources for it. The need for Head Start is greater than ever. Child 
poverty is on the rise again. Today, only 60 percent of children 
eligible for Head Start participate in it. Over 312,000 three- and 
four-year-olds are left out because of the inadequate funding level of 
the program. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants 
and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible 
for Early Head Start have no access to it. It's long past time for 
Congress to expand access to Head Start to serve as many infants, 
toddlers, and preschool children as possible.
  Throughout the 1990's, we tripled our investment, and Head Start 
expanded by 52 percent. But this year, the President's budget fails to 
reach out to a single new child. It provides only $148 million in 
additional funding for the coming year--only a quarter of the increase 
that Head Start received in recent years, and barely enough to cover 
inflation.
  The bill that we introduce today will set a goal of fully funding 
Head Start over the next 5 years, in order to reach all eligible 
preschoolers. Each year, an additional 62,000 three- and four-year-olds 
would be served by the program. Funding will rise from $6.7 billion in 
the current fiscal year, to $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $16.3 
billion in fiscal year 2008.
  Early Head Start is an especially important lifeline for needy 
infants and toddlers. Research clearly shows its benefit to infants and 
toddlers and their families. Early Head Start children have larger 
vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of 
sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Parents 
are more likely to play with their children and read to them.
  This bill will double the size of Early Head Start, providing 
resources to serve an additional 29,000 infants and toddlers each year, 
at an estimated cost of $1 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $3.2 
billion in fiscal year 2008.
  The current Federal-to-local structure of Head Start enables it to 
tailor its services to meet local community needs. Performance 
standards guarantee a high level of quality across all programs. Yet 
each program is unique and specifically adapted to the local community. 
Head Start is successful in serving Inuit children in Alaska, migrant-
workers' children in Tennessee, and inner-city children in Boston. It 
is essential to maintain the ability of local Head Start programs to 
tailor their services to meet local community's needs.
  To strengthen this coordination with local programs, our bill creates 
a Head Start Quality Improvement and Collaboration Office in every 
state to maximize services to Head Start children, align Head Start 
with kindergarten classrooms, and strengthen its local partnerships 
with other agencies. These offices will also work to expand training 
and technical assistance to Head Start grantees to better meet the goal 
of preparing children for school.
  States will also have an active role in coordinating their early 
childhood programs and increasing their quality. Our bill designates an 
Early Care and Education Council in each State to conduct an inventory 
of children's needs in the state, develop unified data collection and 
make recommendations on coordination, technical assistance and 
training.
  Over the past four decades, Head Start has built up quality and 
performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that 
children are educated in the basics about letters and numbers and 
books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and 
nurturing relationships. Head Start is a model program, and we can 
enhance its quality even more.
  One way to do that is to strengthen Head Start's current literacy 
initiative. We know the key to later reading success is to get young 
children excited about letters and books and numbers. Our bill 
emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training 
required of Head Start teachers, by continuing to promote parent 
literacy, and by working to put more books into Head Start classrooms 
and into children's homes.
  At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They 
are caring, committed persons who know the children they serve and are 
dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to 
identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. 
They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends 
and follow rules. Yet their salary is still half the salary of 
kindergarten teachers, and turnover is high--11 percent a year.
  Because a teacher's quality is directly related to a child's outcome, 
our bill sets a goal that every Head Start classroom has a teacher with 
a bachelor's degree within 8 years. It provides an additional $650 
million over the next 5 years to see that teachers have the means to go 
back to school to earn a bachelor's degree, and it guarantees $3 
billion over that period to see that teachers earn adequate wages to 
keep them in Head Start once they obtain their degree.
  Finally, accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education 
and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its 
promise to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support 
each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement 
community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents 
in their child's growth.
  Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. 
Every 3 years, a Federal and local team spends a week thoroughly 
examining every aspect of every Head Start program. They check 
everything from batteries in flashlights to how parents feel about the 
program. Our bill promotes even stronger monitoring of Head Start 
programs. It calls for periodic visits to programs, and strengthens 
annual reviews and plans for improvement.
  Assessing outcomes for children is vital in promoting accountability 
and ensuring that the gains promised for Head Start children are 
actually achieved. But these steps have to be taken the right way.
  Instead of rushing forward, as the Administration suggests, with a 
national assessment for every four-year-old in Head Start this fall, 
our bill calls on the National Academy of Sciences to guide the 
development and implementation of a high-quality assessment for Head 
Start children over the next four years. That assessment will be valid 
and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what 
it measures, and assess the development of the whole child.
  Unfortunately, the Administration and House Republicans have 
presented plans that would turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start. 
It makes no sense to turn Head Start into a block grant to the states. 
To do so would dismantle the program and undermine Head Start's 
guarantees that children can see doctors and dentists, eat nutritious 
meals, and learn early academic and social skills. It would undermine 
the role of parents, who are better parents today, strong advocates, 
and enthusiastic volunteers as a result of Head Start.
  The Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act we are 
introducing today will keep Head Start on its successful path. I urge 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in continuing and 
strengthening this program, and give children the head start they need 
and deserve to prepare for school and for life.

[[Page S10148]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and 
statement from the National Head Start Association be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: We are writing to voice our strong 
     support for the legislation you plan to introduce today, the 
     Dodd/Kennedy Head Start School Readiness and Coordination 
     Act.
       This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program 
     an build on it 38-year record of success in delivering high 
     quality, comprehensive services to low-income children and 
     their families. The Children's Defense Fund is working to 
     ensure that we truly Leave No Child Behind in America. This 
     bill takes an important step in making this promise a reality 
     by proposing to expand Head Start to all eligible preschool 
     children and double the current set-aside for infants and 
     toddlers over the next five years.
       We applaud the expanded funding as well as your efforts to 
     strengthen and improve Head Start services for the nation's 
     poorest children. Recognizing that teachers are critical to 
     children's learning, the bill promotes advances education for 
     Head Start teachers and guarantees the necessary federal 
     resources to ensure that qualified teachers can afford to 
     stay in Head Start classrooms. The bill also encourages new 
     models for developing a comprehensive, coordinated system of 
     preschool education. While preserving Head Start's existing 
     federal to local funding structure, these strategies will 
     ensure strong collaboration at both the local and start 
     levels.
       Your legislation is a marked improvement over the injurious 
     bill passed by the House of Representatives last week. It is 
     my fervent hope that the Senator wholesheartedly rejects the 
     House approach in conference.
       As always, we are deeply grateful for your extraordinary 
     leadership of children and families and we look forward to 
     working with you on this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely yours,
     Marian Wright Edelman.
                                  ____


   Statement by Sarah Greene, President and CEO, National Head Start 
                           Association (NHSA)

     Re Kennedy-Dodd Head Start bill.
       Washington, D.C., July 29, 2003.--Sarah Greene, president 
     and CEO of the National Head Start Association, released the 
     following statement today:
       ``The National Head Start Association, representing 2,500 
     local Head Start providers, over 900,000 at-risk children, 
     47,000 teachers and parents and volunteers, is pleased to 
     endorse the ``Head Start School Readiness and Coordination 
     Act'' introduce today by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and 
     Christopher Dodd (D-CT), ranking members of the Senate 
     Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
       This legislation will strengthen the Head Start workforce 
     by requiring stronger credentials for Head Start teachers and 
     bring wages more into line with public school pre-
     kindergarten and kindergarten teachers; improve Head Start's 
     academic focus, particularly in pre-literacy instruction; 
     expand Head Start to reach more at-risk children, including 
     more younger children through the expansion of Early Head 
     Start; and promote better coordination across all early care 
     and education programs within the states.
       NHSA is proud to have been involved in the crafting of this 
     expansive measure that will continue the long history of 
     improving Head Start's program quality and outcomes for our 
     neediest pre-schoolers. The Head Start community will work 
     closely with members of the help Committee to assure passage 
     of this important legislation.''


                               about nhsa

       The National Head Start Association is a private not-for-
     profit membership organization dedicated exclusively to 
     meeting the needs of Head Start children and their families. 
     The Association provides support for the entire Head Start 
     family by advocating for policies that provide high-quality 
     services to children and their families; by providing 
     extensive training and professional development services to 
     all Head Start staff; and be developing and disseminating 
     research, information, and resources that impact Head Start 
     program delivery. NHSA provides a national forum for the 
     continued delivery and enhancement of Head Start services for 
     at-risk children and their families.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Head 
Start School Readiness and Coordination Act.
  Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood 
development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other 
services to low-income preschool children and their families. I believe 
our goal during the upcoming reauthorization must be to enhance, not 
dismantle, this essential program so it can continue its important and 
necessary work to lessen the effects of poverty and ensure that 
children are ready for school.
  Head Start serves our poorest children and families but it does not 
reach enough of them. Although Head Start currently serves over 900,000 
children, mainly 3- and 4-year-olds, 40 percent of eligible children, 
approximately 600,000, are currently not served. Early Head Start, 
arguably an even more critically important program for infants, 
toddlers and pregnant women given what we now know about early brain 
development, serves a mere 3 percent of those eligible.
  Several measures are needed to improve Head Start while ensuring that 
its many important services are not reduced. We need to fully fund Head 
Start so that many more children can benefit. We need resources to 
improve the quality of Head Start teachers and adequately compensate 
them. And we need to improve coordination with child care and State-
funded pre-kindergarten programs.
  Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal and the House bill do 
none of these things. Instead they would create a block grant for 
States and, by doing so, eliminate both the program's Federal quality 
standards and the requirement for comprehensive services. With almost 
all States facing substantial budget deficits and many already cutting 
funding for early child care and pre-kindergarten programs, a block 
grant demonstration for one State, eight States, or more would jettison 
the Head Start guarantee of high quality programs and comprehensive 
services for our nation's low income children and families.
  The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act preserves both 
the performance standards that ensure quality as well as the 
comprehensive services such as health screenings, immunizations, 
nutritious meals, emotional and behavioral supports, and direct support 
to parents of Head Start children. I will work hard to ensure that 
these important services are not diminished and that the effort to 
improve Head Start does not come at the expense or sacrifice of other 
aspects of the program.
  A particular focus of mine during the past several education 
reauthorizations has been to ensure that our teachers get the training 
and continued professional development they need to help students 
succeed.
  Currently, only 25 percent of Head Start teachers hold bachelor's 
degrees. A key provision in the Head Start School Readiness and 
Coordination Act would require all newly hired teachers to have a 
minimum of an Associate's degree and all classrooms to have a teacher 
with a Bachelor's degree by 2008. Importantly, the bill also provides 
funding for Head Start teachers to meet these requirements and to boost 
Head Start teacher's salaries to alleviate the shortage and turnover 
problem that currently exists. Head Start teachers typically earn half 
the salary of kindergarten teachers. If we expect a higher level of 
education from these teachers, then we must compensate them at higher 
levels.
  Unfortunately, the House bill does not provide the means of achieving 
either of these goals. It is questionable whether the House bill even 
provides enough funding to cover the cost of inflation. It clearly does 
not provide funding to boost salaries or provide the additional 
educational training to achieve the degree requirements sought. Worse, 
the House bill reduces the minimum set-aside for training and technical 
assistance from 2 percent to 1 percent and introduces a cap of 2 
percent. We will never attract and retain highly qualified teachers 
without financial support to enable their education and training and 
incentives to keep them in the Head Start program.
  Another troubling aspect of both the Administration's proposal and 
House bill is that both would allow employment discrimination based on 
religion in Head Start programs run by religious groups.
  Faith-based organizations are an integral part of Head Start, having 
already provided such services for years. We should continue to 
encourage their participation without allowing them to discriminate. 
Indeed, during the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee 
hearing, the Administration witnesses were unable to provide any 
information on barriers faced by religious organizations in 
participating in Head Start, nor could they identify any research 
pointing to the efficacy of teaching by unified religious staff. I

[[Page S10149]]

will fight hard to prevent such discrimination in Head Start as I have 
in other bills moving through Congress.
  I am pleased that provisions I worked on have also been included in 
The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act.
  I am particularly pleased about the over-income provision that will 
allow more children to qualify whose families are above the poverty 
line but are still struggling to make ends meet. The parental 
involvement provisions will encourage the continuity of their 
involvement and improve the academic success of children in Head Start 
activities. The library and museum provisions will develop and enhance 
close collaborations of these institutions with Head Start programs to 
strengthen literacy skills and other educational outcomes for children.
  I commend Senators Kennedy and Dodd on their work to draft this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act, of which I 
am a proud original co-sponsor. I want to commend Senator Dodd and 
Senator Kennedy for their hard work and commitment to making this bill 
the best it could be.
  The Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act presents a clear 
contrast with what has been proposed by the Administration and what has 
been passed by the House of Representatives. What this Administration 
and the Republican Leaders in the House want to do will not provide a 
Head Start for children--it will be a giant step back. A step back from 
all of the great things that Head Start provides: family services, 
dental care, health care, and of course learning. We need to strengthen 
Head Start not weaken it. And we need to expand its reach, not limit 
it.
  The way we create more opportunities for every child in New York and 
across the country is to build on our successes. And let met tell you 
Head Start has been a success since 1965. More than 20 million kids 
have benefited from this program. In this year alone, 50,000 New York 
families will participate.
  And the trend every time reauthorization has come up is to build a 
program that helps even more children and their families. If it's not 
broken, don't fix it.
  And that's what our ``Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act'' 
will do. We double the size of Early Head Start. We expand access to 
all eligible pre-schoolers. We provide better services for families and 
children who are still learning English--that's 25 percent of the Head 
Start population. And we improve coordination between the States so 
that children are ready for school and so that every child who needs it 
to have access to year-round care.
  This bill builds on the remarkable success of the Clinton 
Administration in improving Head Start. During my husband's tenure in 
the White House, enrollment in Head Start increased by almost 30 
percent and funding increased by 120 percent. In 1994, my husband 
created the Early Head program to provide critical care to infants who 
are in one of--if not the most--critical stage of development. And in 
the 1998 reauthorization, we doubled the Early Head Start program so 
that today it is serving 62,000 infants and toddlers.
  The Clinton Administration also introduced outcome measures aligned 
with the successful performance standards to improve the quality of the 
program. And we ensured that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have 
an Associates degree. At the time, many people said we were setting 
impossible standards, but today, the performance standards and outcomes 
are the backbone of every Head Start program, and the goal of 50 
percent of teachers having Associates degrees has been exceeded.
  So, I know that we can reform and improve Head Start. And that is why 
I will never support dismantling it. Head Start is more than just one 
of this country's most successful anti-poverty programs. It is a great 
equalizer. It is a place where a young girl might have a book read to 
her for the first time; a place where a young boy might have his first 
check-up, and a place where a mother or father might learn about 
nutrition, the early signs of lead poisoning, and how to encourage 
learning at home.
  Head Start has lived up to its name and then some for millions of 
Americans. There is bipartisan support to preserve Head Start as we 
know it, to expand it, and to improve it. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to make sure that this happens. We can do all of 
these great things without dismantling one of our greatest national 
endeavors for our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 1484. A bill to require a report on Federal Government use of 
commercial and other databases for national security, intelligence, and 
law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the United States can fight 
terrorism ferociously without gutting civil liberties. The point of the 
legislation I am introducing today is to address concerns that have 
arisen about the second part of this equation: an area of privacy that 
has gotten short shrift. That is the personal financial, medical and 
other data on millions of Americans that today is less than a 
mouseclick away from the computers of thousands of Federal bureaucrats. 
Access to and the use of that personal information by Federal 
bureaucrats is not protected by any comprehensive law.
  The power of technology that allows the Federal Government to pry 
into the personal lives of millions of Americans is only beginning to 
be understood. It is a breath-taking power, and it has come partly to 
light through the Defense Department's Terrorism Information Awareness 
Program (TIA), and through the Transportation Security Administration's 
Computer Assisted Passenger Profiling System II or CAPPSII Program. 
These and more than two dozen other agencies wield that power with 
little or no restraint.
  The legislation I am introducing with the support of a bipartisan 
group of privacy watchdog organizations, the Citizens' Protection in 
Federal Databases Act, will put the breaks on unchecked Federal data 
sweeps. It requires the Federal agencies with law enforcement or 
intelligence authority to share with Congress exactly what they are 
doing with private or public databases, why they are doing it, and most 
importantly, what, if any, privacy protections the agencies are 
affording the individuals' whose sensitive information is caught up in 
those databases.
  The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act also prohibits 
searches based on hypothetical scenarios.
  Apparently, some government agencies are using valuable Federal 
resources chasing hypothetical situations dreamed up without regard to 
actual intelligence or law enforcement information.
  The TIA Report to Congress in May of this year explained at length 
the program's intent to construct possible terrorist ``scenarios'' 
based on ``historical examples, estimated capabilities, and 
imagination.'' These scenarios would then be fed into database searches 
in an effort to substantiate the hypotheticals.
  This Act bans such searches. This prohibition will promote the 
efficient use of Federal law enforcement time and money and help 
protect Americans from being subject to ``virtual goose chases.''
  Since 9/11, there has been an abundance of stories regarding 
Americans being stopped, searched, or detained due to some mistaken 
information. For example, after 9/11, the FBI decided to share with 
companies across the country a list with names of people wanted for 
possible association with terrorism. This list, as part of ``Project 
Lookout,'' was sent to thousands of corporations, some of whom now use 
the list in lieu of background checks.
  Here's the problem--this list is not necessarily accurate. First of 
all, the list quickly became obsolete as the FBI checked people off. 
That means even if people were cleared by the FBI of suspicion, their 
names were still on this list. Secondly, the list has been shared so 
many times, and passed from person to person, group to group--many 
names have become misspelled and now folks, due to one or two typos, 
are being stopped as suspected terrorists.
  That story is just one example of what can happen when information is

[[Page S10150]]

mishandled. It is Congress's job to make sure mistakes like these do 
not happen.
  The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act is not the end of 
this issue. After shedding some light on what exactly is happening with 
personal information--the Congress must then address how to protect 
Americans from the misuse of this information.
  I am happy to be working with a strong group of privacy advocates. 
The group includes the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the 
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and 
Technology, People for the American Way, the Free Congress Foundation, 
and the American Civil Liberties Union, and they have been instrumental 
in getting strong safeguards enacted against abuses in the TIA and 
other programs. I look forward to working with these groups, and my 
Senate colleagues, to see that this bill is enacted into law.
  When tens of thousands of bureaucrats have at their fingertips all-
too-easy access to such personal information from private and public 
databases as the use of passports, driver's licenses, credit cards, 
ATMs, airline tickets, and rental cars, the American people want to 
know what is happening to their information. They want to know who 
wants access to it and why. Their personal information deserves strong 
privacy protection, and that is what this legislation is all about.
  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. 1484

       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 ``Citizens' Protection in 
     Federal Databases Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Many Federal national security, law enforcement, and 
     intelligence agencies are currently accessing large 
     databases, both public and private, containing information 
     that was not initially collected for national security, law 
     enforcement, or intelligence purposes.
       (2) These databases contain personal and sensitive 
     information on millions of United States persons.
       (3) Some of these databases are subject to Federal privacy 
     protections when in private sector control.
       (4) Risks to personal privacy are heightened when personal 
     information from different sources, including public records, 
     is aggregated in a single file and made accessible to 
     thousands of national security, law enforcement, and 
     intelligence personnel.
       (5) It is unclear what standards, policies, procedures, and 
     guidelines govern the access to or use of these public and 
     private databases by the Federal Government.
       (6) It is unclear what Federal Government agencies believe 
     they legally can and cannot do with the information once 
     acquired.
       (7) The Federal Government should be required to adhere to 
     clear civil liberties and privacy standards when accessing 
     personal information.
       (8) There is a need for clear accountability standards with 
     regard to the accessing or usage of information contained in 
     public and private databases by Federal agencies.
       (9) Without accountability, individuals and the public have 
     no way of knowing who is reading, using, or disseminating 
     personal information.
       (10) The Federal Government should not access personal 
     information on United States persons without some nexus to 
     suspected counterintelligence, terrorist, or other illegal 
     activity.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PROCUREMENT OR ACCESS 
                   OF COMMERCIAL DATABASES PENDING REPORT ON USE 
                   OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, commencing 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     to the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the 
     Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence 
     Agency, the Department of Treasury, or the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation may be obligated or expended by such department 
     or agency on the procurement of or access to any commercially 
     available database unless such head of such department or 
     agency submits to Congress the report required by subsection 
     (b) not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Report.--(1) The Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall each 
     prepare, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, 
     and make available to the public a report, in writing, 
     containing a detailed description of any use by the 
     department or agency under the jurisdiction of such official, 
     or any national security, intelligence, or law enforcement 
     element under the jurisdiction of the department or agency, 
     of databases that were obtained from or remain under the 
     control of a non-Federal entity, or that contain information 
     that was acquired initially by another department or agency 
     of the Federal Government for purposes other than national 
     security, intelligence or law enforcement, regardless of 
     whether any compensation was paid for such databases.
       (2) Each report shall include--
       (A) a list of all contracts, memoranda of understanding, or 
     other agreements entered into by the department or agency, or 
     any other national security, intelligence, or law enforcement 
     element under the jurisdiction of the department or agency 
     for the use of, access to, or analysis of databases that were 
     obtained from or remain under the control of a non-Federal 
     entity, or that contain information that was acquired 
     initially by another department or agency of the Federal 
     Government for purposes other than national security, 
     intelligence, or law enforcement;
       (B) the duration and dollar amount of such contracts;
       (C) the types of data contained in the databases referred 
     to in subparagraph (A);
       (D) the purposes for which such databases are used, 
     analyzed, or accessed;
       (E) the extent to which such databases are used, analyzed, 
     or accessed;
       (F) the extent to which information from such databases is 
     retained by the department or agency, or any national 
     security, intelligence, or law enforcement element under the 
     jurisdiction of the department or agency, including how long 
     the information is retained and for what purpose;
       (G) a thorough description, in unclassified form, of any 
     methodologies being used or developed by the department or 
     agency, or any intelligence or law enforcement element under 
     the jurisdiction of the department or agency, to search, 
     access, or analyze such databases;
       (H) an assessment of the likely efficacy of such 
     methodologies in identifying or locating criminals, 
     terrorists, or terrorist groups, and in providing practically 
     valuable predictive assessments of the plans, intentions, or 
     capabilities of criminals, terrorists, or terrorist groups;
       (I) a thorough discussion of the plans for the use of such 
     methodologies;
       (J) a thorough discussion of the activities of the 
     personnel, if any, of the department or agency while assigned 
     to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center; and
       (K) a thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, 
     guidelines, regulations, and laws, if any, that have been or 
     will be applied in the access, analysis, or other use of the 
     databases referred to in subparagraph (A), including--
       (i) the personnel permitted to access, analyze, or 
     otherwise use such databases;
       (ii) standards governing the access, analysis, or use of 
     such databases;
       (iii) any standards used to ensure that the personal 
     information accessed, analyzed, or used is the minimum 
     necessary to accomplish the intended legitimate Government 
     purpose;
       (iv) standards limiting the retention and redisclosure of 
     information obtained from such databases;
       (v) procedures ensuring that such data meets standards of 
     accuracy, relevance, completeness, and timeliness;
       (vi) the auditing and security measures to protect against 
     unauthorized access, analysis, use, or modification of data 
     in such databases;
       (vii) applicable mechanisms by which individuals may secure 
     timely redress for any adverse consequences wrongfully 
     incurred due to the access, analysis, or use of such 
     databases;
       (viii) mechanisms, if any, for the enforcement and 
     independent oversight of existing or planned procedures, 
     policies, or guidelines; and
       (ix) an outline of enforcement mechanisms for 
     accountability to protect individuals and the public against 
     unlawful or illegitimate access or use of databases.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no department, agency, or other element of the Federal 
     Government, or officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     may conduct a search or other analysis for national security, 
     intelligence, or law enforcement purposes of a database based 
     solely on a hypothetical scenario or hypothetical supposition 
     of who may commit a crime or pose a threat to national 
     security.
       (b) Construction.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall 
     not be construed to endorse or allow any other activity that 
     involves use or access of databases referred to in section 
     3(b)(2)(A).

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
       (B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Database.--The term ``database'' means any collection 
     or grouping of information about individuals that contains 
     personally identifiable information about individuals, such 
     as individual's names, or identifying numbers, symbols, or 
     other identifying

[[Page S10151]]

     particulars associated with individuals, such as 
     fingerprints, voice prints, photographs, or other biometrics. 
     The term does not include telephone directories or 
     information publicly available on the Internet without fee.
       (3) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' has the meaning given that term in section 101(i) of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1801(i)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1485. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
protect the rights of employees to receive overtime compensation; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Harkin 
and other colleagues on this legislation to protect the right to 
overtime pay for millions of working men and women across America. The 
Bush administration has just announced new regulations that would deny 
overtime protections to more than 8 million hard-working men and women, 
including an estimated 200,000 workers in Massachusetts. Firefighters, 
police officers, military reservists, nurses, retail clerks, medical 
technicians, tech workers and many others would be harmed by the new 
rules.
  In the current failing economy, these workers depend more than ever 
on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay their bills for housing, 
food, and health care. Overtime pay often constitutes as much as a 
quarter of their total pay, and the administration's proposal will mean 
an average pay cut of $161 a week for them.
  Our bill states clearly that no worker currently eligible for 
overtime protection can be denied overtime pay as a result of the new 
regulations.
  We know that overtime protections make an immense difference in 
preserving the 40-hour work week. For over half a century, the Fair 
Labor Standards Act has discouraged employers from requiring longer 
hours of work, by making overtime more expensive. Instead of relying on 
fewer workers forced to work longer hours, employers are likely to hire 
additional workers to meet the employer's needs. That result creates 
more jobs, and reduces the unfair exploitation of workers.
  The Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years in 
which the number of private sector jobs has declined. Not since 
President Hoover have we been hemorrhaging jobs like this. How could 
any fair administration possibly adopt regulations that will increase 
overtime working hours, and reduce the need to hire additional workers?

  According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees 
exempt from overtime pay are twice as likely to work overtime as those 
covered by the protection. Americans are working longer hours today 
than ever before--longer than in any other industrial nation. At least 
one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours, let 
alone 40 hours.
  Clearly, workers are already struggling to balance their families' 
needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work more 
hours for less pay will add an even greater burden to this daily 
struggle. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the 
work-family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all 
parts of the nation.
  Sixty-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed into law the Fair 
Labor Standards Act to establish a minimum wage and maximum work hours. 
It was the midst of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt told 
the country that ``if the hours of labor for the individual could be 
shortened . . . more people could be employed. If minimum wages could 
be established, each worker could get a living wage.''
  Those words are as true in 2003 as they were in 1938. The economy has 
lost more private sector jobs during this economic decline than in any 
recession since the Great Depression. What can the administration be 
thinking, to come up with this shameful proposal to weaken the overtime 
protections on which millions of workers rely? Is the administration so 
desperate to prop up business profits that it's willing to punish 
workers to do it?
  As Senator Harkin says, the President's policy is economic 
malpractice. Democrats will not sit idly by and watch Americans lose 
their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. We will 
continue the fight to restore jobs to the economy, provide fair 
unemployment benefits, and raise the minimum wage. And we will do all 
we can to preserve the overtime protections on which so many Americans 
families depend. I urge my colleagues to support this essential 
legislation to keep the faith with the Nation's working families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1486. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act and the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to implement the 
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Protocol on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Convention on Long-Range 
Transboundary Air Pollution, and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior 
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and 
Pesticides in International Trade; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the POPs, LRTAP POPs, 
and PIC Implementation Act of 2003, along with Senator Jeffords. This 
legislation implements the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants (POPs), the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air 
Pollution (LRTAP POPs), and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed 
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in 
International Trade (PIC). With advice and consent by the Senate and 
with passage of this legislation, the United States will appropriately 
become an active participant in these important international 
agreements.
  Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are highly toxic and cause 
adverse health effects, including cancer, reproductive disorders, and 
immune system disruptions. POPs may not break down for years or 
decades, can travel long distances through air and water, and are known 
to bioaccumulate in living organisms. PCBs, DDT, and dioxin are 
examples of POPs. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants seeks to globally eliminate or severely restrict the 
production and use of 12 of the most dangerous pesticides and 
industrial chemicals, ensure the environmentally sound management of 
POPs waste, and prevent the emergence of new chemicals with POPs-like 
characteristics. To date, there are 151 signatories and 33 Parties to 
the Convention.
  The legislation we are introducing today implements the key provision 
of the POPs Convention which allows additional chemicals to be added to 
the Convention. The bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to 
create a process by which the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency would consider regulating a newly listed chemical to 
the POPs Convention or to the LRTAP POPs Protocol. Beginning 1 year 
after a chemical is added by the international body, any person may 
petition the Administrator to commence a rulemaking if one has not been 
commenced. Providing mechanism to include additional chemicals at a 
future date, with opportunities for public involvement, ensures that 
the United States will fully implement the POPs Convention.
  This bill includes two titles: the first title amends the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the second title amends the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Senator Jeffords 
and I have worked exclusively to forge a compromise on the first title 
amending TSCA. The second title amending FIFRA will be considered by 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The language in 
this bill amending FIFRA is intended to serve as a place holder until 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has the 
opportunity to consider that title. It does not represent a compromise 
on that title.
  I believe that this adding mechanism includes appropriate checks and 
balances, and requires the Environmental Protection Agency to balance 
the relevant factors when determining how to regulate a newly-listed 
chemical. While

[[Page S10152]]

different parties would craft these provisions differently if starting 
with a clean slate, I believe that this legislation represents a solid 
compromise that will allow the United States to fulfill its obligations 
when Governor Whitman signed the POPs treaty, and will engage the 
United States as a leading member of the international community 
regarding toxic substances.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1487. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to award the 
Combat Medical Badge or another combat badge for Army helicopter 
medical evacuation ambulance (Medevac) pilots and crews; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain 
briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical 
Badge, CMB, or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the 
Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance 
units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have 
flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and Marines.
  The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was recently brought to my 
attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing 
the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the 
service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the 
Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by 
extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would 
receive life-saving medical care.
  The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during 
the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War 
helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded 
from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group 
of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' 
helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew 
could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide 
station.
  The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky 
and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of 
helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. 
However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting 
spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable 
resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 
1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied 
military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical 
assistance sites.
  Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th 
Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST 
OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the 
``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, 
the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the 
motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today.
  Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of 
rescuing fallen comrades--so much so that he gave his life to the 
mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to 
evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was 
instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the 
landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase 
that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As 
Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in 
the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and 
the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned 
its permanency in the Army.
  I recently received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army 
Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an 
Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two 
tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand 
the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews 
displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as 
a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and 
extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing 
stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew 
chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the 
wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF 
pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives 
every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded.
  I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of 
DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will 
recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which 
acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the 
War Department created the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, in WWII, as a 
companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge, CIB, it did so to recognize 
that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of 
ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF 
pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground 
combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly 
assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit--a fact that, under 
current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB--
should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one 
author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. 
Army in Vietnam.''
  I had not introduced a bill until today because I wanted to hear 
testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under 
fire. I also wanted to provide the Army with an opportunity to explain 
its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an 
appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Earlier today, the 
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the matter. 
Based on testimony offered today by three Vietnam veterans--Chief 
Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant 
Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' 
Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of 
this legislation. The Army again expressed its opposition today; I do 
hope that it will reconsider.
  On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 
medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. 
The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in 
Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature 
of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to 
perform, while serving on DUST OFF crew.
  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. 1487

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

     SECTION 1. AWARD OF COMBAT MEDICAL BADGE (CMB) OR OTHER 
                   COMBAT BADGE FOR ARMY HELICOPTER MEDICAL 
                   EVACUATION AMBULANCE (MEDEVAC) PILOTS AND 
                   CREWS.

       (a) Requirement To Elect and Award Combat Badge.--The 
     Secretary of the Army shall, at the election of the 
     Secretary--
       (1) award the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) to each member of 
     a helicopter medical evacuation ambulance crew; or
       (2)(A) establish a badge of appropriate design, to be known 
     as the Combat Medevac Badge; and
       (B) award that badge to each member of a helicopter medical 
     evacuation ambulance crew who meets such requirements for 
     eligibility for the award of that badge as the Secretary 
     shall prescribe.
       (b) Award for Service Before Date of Enactment.--In the 
     case of persons who qualified for treatment as a member of a 
     helicopter medical evacuation ambulance crew by reason of 
     service during the period beginning on June 25, 1950, and 
     ending on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall award a badge under subsection (a) to each such person 
     with respect to whom an application for the award of such 
     badge is made to the Secretary after such date in such manner 
     as the Secretary may require.
       (c) Member of Helicopter Medical Evacuation Ambulance Crew 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``member of a helicopter 
     medical evacuation ambulance crew'' means any person who 
     while a member of the Army served in combat on or after June 
     25, 1950, as a pilot or crew member of a helicopter medical 
     evacuation ambulance.

[[Page S10153]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1488. A bill to establish the Native American Entrepreneurs 
Program to provide $3,000,000 in grants annually to qualified 
organizations to provide training and technical assistance to 
disadvantaged Native American entrepreneurs; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Native American 
Entrepreneurs Act of 2003. The purpose of this legislation is 
straightforward: it authorizes grants of $3 million in 2004, $4 million 
in 2005, and $5 million in 2006 to qualified organizations to provide 
training and technical assistance to Native American entrepreneurs.
  In my State of New Mexico and all across the country Native Americans 
still confront the problem of economic development, this in spite of 
the many efforts that have been made over time, both by Congress and by 
the tribes themselves. Over the last decade, some tribes have found a 
way to address this problem by focusing on the creation of gambling 
centers. But while these clearly have assisted many tribes, from where 
I sit this is at best a short- or medium-term solution that does not 
address the foremost issue at hand--that being how we help individual 
Native Americans acquire the business skills to become self-sufficient.
  In the 106th Congress the Senate and the House passed legislation 
that created a program at the Small Business Administration that was 
designed to help disadvantaged individuals gain access to the technical 
training and funds. The bill--the Program for Investment in 
Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999, or PRIME--was drafted by several 
Senators, myself included, who felt it was imperative to encourage 
investment in microentrepreneurial activities in the United States. The 
reason for the effort was simple: microenterprise was a proven 
mechanism for enabling individuals on the periphery to obtain the 
capital and technical training needed to start their own business and 
move up the economic ladder in their community. It was also a proven 
mechanism for creating jobs, alleviating poverty, and stimulating 
economic development. It deserved to be pushed to the forefront of our 
legislative efforts in the Senate.
  Under the PRIME legislation, organizations that provide technical 
assistance and loans to Native American communities are eligible for 
grants. But while diversity in grant award are mandated under the 
legislation, specific amounts mandated for Native Americans are not. 
The legislation I am introducing today would change that. The 
legislation provides additional funding to the PRIME Act for 
organizations that work with Native Americans specifically. In other 
words, the funding does not negate the possibility that further funds 
be provided to Native Americans under PRIME, nor, because it is 
additional funds over and above current authorization levels, does it 
cut into the funds that are now available to microenterprise 
organizations under PRIME. But it does ensure that organizations that 
serve only Native Americans get specific funding for their efforts.
  I will be the first to admit that the authorization levels in this 
bill are modest, but they are feasible given the current budget 
environment. I will also admit that the bill carves out a small portion 
of the problem currently facing Native Americans, but I consider it to 
be a first step. I intend to address others problems in future 
legislation. The most important thing is that this bill, if enacted, 
will have an immediate and concrete impact in Native American 
communities in New Mexico and the rest of the country. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.

                          ____________________