[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.
____________________