[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 117 (Friday, August 1, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10908-S10923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 1554. A bill to provide for secondary school reform, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce a bill 
that will help America's teenagers graduate from high school, go on to 
college, and enter the working world with the skills they need to 
succeed. I'm proud to introduce the PASS Act--which stands for the 
Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act. Today, far too many students 
drop-out of school and never have a chance for college and a better 
life. My bill will reach out to vulnerable students during high school 
by providing the training, guidance and resources they need to stay in 
school and go on to college.
  Specifically, the PASS Act will: help schools hire literacy coaches 
to strengthen essential reading and writing skills. It will provide 
grants for high-quality Academic Counselors to ensure each student has 
an individualized plan and access to services to prepare for college 
and a good job. And finally, the PASS Act targets resources to those 
high schools that need the most help, so they can implement research-
based strategies for success.
  Many of America's high schools and high school students are in 
serious trouble, and it's only getting worse.
  With each new school day, 3,000 secondary students drop out of 
school. This year alone, nearly 540,000 young people will leave school 
without attaining a high school diploma. Our Nation's high school 
graduation rate is 69 percent. And in urban areas, that figure is even 
worse. Many urban school districts graduate fewer than half of their 
students. Dropping out has an enormous cost to these students, their 
families and our communities. Sadly, even those students who do receive 
a high school diploma are not guaranteed success in college or in life.
  Many graduate from high school unprepared for the academic rigor of 
post-secondary study. About 40 percent of four-year college students 
and 63 percent of community college students are enrolling in remedial 
courses in reading, writing, or math when they enter college.
  And although approximately 70 percent of high school graduates enroll 
in college, only 7 percent from low-income families will have earned a 
bachelor's degree by age 24--in part because they have not been 
properly prepared for college academics.
  That's why today I'm introducing a bill to improve our Nation's 
secondary schools, especially those serving high-need students. First, 
the PASS Act would ensure that middle or high school students who are 
still struggling to master literacy will get additional help. About 60 
percent of students in the poorest communities fail to graduate from 
secondary school on time, in large part because they don't have the 
reading or writing skills they need. We took a good step in creating 
the Reading First program to strengthen students' reading skills in the 
elementary grades. These skills are the foundation of their success 
throughout their academic careers. However, many middle and high school 
students struggle with serious reading deficits and substandard 
literacy skills that have gone unattended for years.
  The 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that the 
reading achievement of 12th grade students has declined at all 
performance levels since 1998. Thirty-three percent of 12th grade boys, 
and 20 percent of 12th grade girls read below the ``basic level.''
  While the percentage of 4th and 8th graders writing at or above a 
basic level has increased between 1998 and 2002, the percentage of 12th 
graders writing at or above basic has gone down.
  These numbers show that our concentrated efforts for elementary and 
middle school students have improved their writing skills, but by 
neglecting the needs of secondary school students. We are squandering 
these gains.
  In response, Title I of my bill creates a $1 billion ``Reading to 
succeed'' grant program.
  Building on the strong foundation of the Reading First program, this 
grant program will establish effective, research-based reading and 
writing programs for students in our middle and high schools, including 
children with limited English proficiency and children with 
disabilities.
  These grants will provide resources for schools to hire literary 
coaches at a ratio of at least one for every 20 teachers. The coaches 
will help teachers incorporate research-based literary instruction into 
their core subject teaching. This will strengthen the reading and 
writing skills of all students, while identifying and helping those 
students whose skills are especially poor. These coaches will assess 
students and coordinate services to address significant reading and 
writing deficits.
  In addition to hiring literacy coaches, funds can be used to provide 
relevant professional development, strengthen curricula in secondary 
schools, and implement diagnostic assessments, research-based 
curricula, instructional materials, and interventions in middle and 
high schools.
  These literacy coaches can help us make sure that no more students 
slip through the cracks because they never learned to read.
  In addition to strong literacy skills, careful planning, sound advice 
and strong academic support are critical to guiding students to 
success. Too many high school students make it to graduation, only to 
find that they cannot attend the school of their choice or enter a 
chosen career because they are not prepared. Many high school students 
are floundering--unable to find out what courses they need to take or 
how they can get past academic or other barriers.
  Unfortunately, most of our school counselors serve too many students 
with too few resources. High school counselors work with an average of 
450 students each, making it impossible to guide each individual 
student along the pathway to high school graduation and work or 
college. Title II of my bill seeks to address this problem by creating 
grants for thorough, high-quality academic and career counseling for 
our high school students.
  These grants will cultivate and promote parent involvement in their 
child's education, and will coordinate support services for at-risk 
high school students across the country.
  This ``Creating Pathways to Success Program'' would complement other 
existing successful high school programs by providing $2 billion to 
support systemic change in the way we guide our high school students to 
success.
  The funds could be used to hire and train Academic Counselors to work 
with no more than 150 students each, and to equip these counselors with 
the time, skills, and resources to work directly with students, 
parents, and teachers to give each student the individualized attention 
and service they need.
  Academic Counselors will work with students and parents to develop 6-
year plans outlining the path each student will take to reach his or 
her goals.
  They will coordinate new resources with existing ones such as GEAR 
UP, TRIO, Title I, IDEA and Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 
programs to ensure students receive the services identified in their 
plans and to facilitate a smooth transition to postsecondary education 
or a career.
  Schools that get these new funds must offer a rigorous college 
preparatory curriculum to all students, including access to Advanced 
Placement or International Baccalaureate courses.
  Working together we can make sure that our adolescents graduate 
prepared for any dream they may choose to pursue.
  Finally, my bill includes a third title called ``Supporting 
Successful High Schools'' to ensure that we take action to help turn 
around our low-performing high schools.
  Approximately 10 percent of the schools which have been identified so 
far as ``in need of improvement'' according to the requirements of No 
Child Left Behind are high schools.
  In about 1100 high schools, 75 percent or more of the students 
enrolled are living in poverty.
  Despite these numbers, most reform efforts are focused on elementary 
schools. We've overlooked struggling middle and high schools.

[[Page S10909]]

  Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title I funding should be used to 
help all schools that need improvement, but high schools receive only 
15 percent of Title I funds, even though they enroll 33 percent of low-
income students.
  Until Title I is fully-funded, it is unlikely that high schools will 
receive a significant amount of these funds to address the problems 
they have identified.
  Meanwhile, high schools are being held to the requirements of No 
Child Left Behind without a targeted source of funding to turn around 
schools in need of improvement.
  Our states and districts have worked hard to figure out which high 
schools need improvement the most, and now it's time we improve them.
  That's why my bill would create a $500 million grant program that 
allows districts to identify, develop, and implement reforms that will 
turn around these low-performing schools.
  School districts can use funds for research-based strategies and best 
practices that will improve student achievement and bring success.
  Districts would work with parents, teachers, students and communities 
to choose any effective reform such as small schools, block scheduling, 
whole school reforms or individualized learning plans.
  For example, since research shows that small schools enhance student 
outcomes by allowing teachers to offer personalized assistance and 
connect with students, some districts may reduce the size of low-
performing high schools by creating smaller schools or academies within 
larger schools.
  Working together, we can do more than identify our schools in need of 
improvement--we can improve them.
  In conclusion, the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act provides 
the grants America's students need to promote adolescent literacy, 
support college and career pathways for all our students, and to 
improve struggling high schools nationwide.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and 
addressing the needs of our high school students.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1555. A bill to designate certain public lands as wilderness and 
certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in the State of California, to 
designate Salmon Restoration Areas, to establish the Sacramento River 
National Conservation Area and Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, history books written about California 
always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural 
treasures have always been one of the things that makes California 
unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am 
introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 in an effort to 
pass the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984.
  I introduced a similar bill last year and was thrilled that the 107th 
Congress passed legislation to designate 56,000 acres of my bill as 
wilderness within the Los Padres National Forest. It was a wonderful 
first step. The California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 represents the 
next step.
  This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public 
lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 
rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure. But the areas protected 
in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old 
growth redwood forests near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt 
Counties; the pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and 
Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather 
Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White 
Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San 
Diego River area.
  The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands 
as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers--including the Clavey in 
Tuolumne County and the Owens in Mono County--as ``wild and scenic'' 
rivers. These designations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new 
construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized 
vehicles. Mining, logging and grazing activities that are currently 
permitted would be allowed to continue.
  Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that 
these precious places will be there for future generations. Because 
much of our state's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in 
our national forests, this bill also helps ensure California has a 
safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water.
  This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal 
species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a 
safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be 
protected by this bill include the bald eagle, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, 
and spring run chinook salmon, among others.
  In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and protects. It preserves 
our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our 
most endangered wildlife.
  That is why this bill is so widely supported. Thousands of diverse 
organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this 
legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, over 400 
local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their 
local areas.
  Despite the tremendous support for this bill, it is not without 
opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet 
this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that 
have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act 
protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolumne 
River. A more recent wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection 
Act, protected approximately 6 million acres of desert areas.
  It is important to note that only 13 percent of California is 
currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 
15 percent. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected 
wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost 
their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and 
mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to 
almost 50 million people, these development pressures are only getting 
worse. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands 
or wild rivers left to protect.
  The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will 
limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the 
case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are 
closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational 
activities, including horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, 
rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and 
motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of roads and trails in California 
that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies 
suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation 
visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special 
designation.
  One important change has been made to the legislation after concerns 
were raised about wildfire prevention and control near at-risk 
communities. The bill I am introducing today protects communities by 
allowing Federal, local and State agencies to perform fire and 
emergency response activities in wilderness areas. I worked extensively 
with the California Department of Forestry on this legislation, and 
they have expressed their support for the language in the bill.
  Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility 
to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They 
have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur 
and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine 
living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future 
generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill 
is the place to start and the time to start is now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Lincoln, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1556. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
restore, increase, and make permanent the exclusion from gross income 
for amounts received under qualified group legal services plans; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Legal

[[Page S10910]]

Services Benefit Act of 2003. My friends and colleagues from the Senate 
Finance Committee, Senators Breaux, Kerry, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and 
Snowe, join me in introducing this important bill. This bill will amend 
the Internal Revenue Code to restore and make permanent the exclusion 
from gross income for amounts received under qualified group legal 
services plans.
  When Congress first enacted Internal Revenue Code Section 120 in 
1976, employers were provided with an incentive to provide their 
workforce with group legal services benefits at modest cost. These 
benefit programs enabled employees to contact an attorney and get 
advice and, if necessary, representation. Most plans covered the 
everyday legal events that we all expect to encounter in life, from 
house closings and adoptions to traffic tickets and drafting wills. The 
provision sunsetted in 1992, however, eliminating this valuable 
benefits' favorable tax status.
  Qualified employer-paid plans have proven to be highly efficient. 
These arrangements make substantial legal service benefits available to 
participants at a fraction of what medical and other benefit plans 
cost. For an average employer contribution of less than $150 annually, 
employees are eligible to utilize a wide range of legal services often 
worth hundreds and even thousands of dollars, which otherwise would be 
well beyond their means.
  In addition to the efficiency with which these plans can deliver 
services, their ability to make preventive legal services available 
results in additional savings in our economy. Group legal plans give 
investors access to legal services before they are induced to make 
unwise investments. Having a lawyer available to review the investment 
documents could mean the difference between a comfortable retirement 
and lost life savings. Group legal plan attorneys add a layer of 
security to the system.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important proposal to provide efficient access to our legal system for 
working Americans. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to 
move this matter successfully through the Finance Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1556

       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 ``Legal Services Benefit Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED GROUP 
                   LEGAL SERVICES PLANS RESTORED, INCREASED, AND 
                   MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) Increase of Exclusion.--Subsection (a) of section 120 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts 
     received under qualified group legal services plans) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Restoration and Permanence of Exclusion.--Section 120 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts 
     received under qualified group legal services plans) is 
     amended by striking subsection (e) and by redesignating 
     subsection (f) as subsection (e).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1557. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 
Armenia; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1557

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Armenia has been found to be in full compliance with 
     the freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the 
     Trade Act of 1974.
       (2) Armenia acceded to the World Trade Organization on 
     February 5, 2003.
       (3) Since declaring its independence from the Soviet Union 
     in 1991, Armenia has made considerable progress in enacting 
     free-market reforms within a stable democratic framework.
       (4) Armenia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a 
     friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States 
     and has concluded many bilateral treaties and agreements with 
     the United States.
       (5) United States-Armenia bilateral trade for 2002 totaled 
     more than $134,200,000.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO ARMENIA.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Armenia; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to Armenia, proclaim the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Armenia, 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to 
     that country.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from 
Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in introducing legislation to grant PNTR 
to Armenia.
  Since becoming an independent sovereign state in 1991, with the 
collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia has pursued comprehensive 
economic reforms within a democratic framework. Armenia's accession to 
the World Trade Organization this year reflects its continuing progress 
in adopting and implementing economic and trade reforms, and it now 
ranks 44th among the 161 nations surveyed in the ``2003 Index of 
Economic Freedom'' that the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage 
Foundation have jointly published.
  As a one-time Soviet republic, Armenia continues to be subject to the 
freedom-of-emigration requirements set out in Title IV of the Trade Act 
of 1974, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and therefore its trade status is 
subject to annual review by the President. Since becoming independent 
Armenia has annually received the waiver provided under Jackson-Vanik, 
and indeed for the past 6 years Armenia has been found to be fully in 
compliance with the amendment.
  So long as Armenia remains subject to the Jackson-Vanik provision, 
the United States is precluded from extending PNTR status and 
normalizing U.S.-Armenian trade relations. At the same time, however, 
WTO rules require the United States to grant PNTR to all other WTO 
members without condition. Our legislation would resolve this 
contradiction by authorizing the President to terminate the Jackson-
Vanik provision with respect to Armenia and extend PNTR. Without PNTR, 
neither Armenia nor the United States will be able to realize the full 
benefits of Armenia's accession to the WTO.
  PNTR will bring the United States into compliance with WTO rules. And 
it will significantly expand opportunities for bilateral trade between 
the United States and Armenia.
  In addition, it will enable Armenia to deal more effectively with the 
challenges of building a vigorous and prosperous economy, at a time 
when 50 percent of the population lives in poverty and the poverty rate 
has dropped from 55 percent only in the last 2 years. These challenges 
are made all the more daunting by the blockades that Azerbaijan and 
Turkey continue to impose; according to the World Bank, these blockades 
raise the cost of doing business in Armenia by 30 percent. Expanded 
U.S.-Armenian trade will act as a spur to greater economic activity in 
Armenia, which in turn will lead to more and better-paying jobs and 
ease the hardships that Armenians confront in their daily lives.
  The ties between our country and Armenia are strong, and 
normalization of trade relations will make them stronger still. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1558. A bill to restore religious freedoms; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1558

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

[[Page S10911]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Religious Liberties 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Declaration of Independence declares that 
     governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable 
     rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
     happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their 
     Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature 
     and of nature's God.
       (2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the 
     constitutions of every State, using various expressions, 
     recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty.
       (3) The first amendment to the Constitution secures rights 
     against laws respecting an establishment of religion or 
     prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the Federal 
     Government.
       (4) The rights secured under the first amendment have been 
     interpreted by the Federal courts to be included among the 
     provisions of the 14th amendment.
       (5) The 10th amendment reserves to the States, 
     respectively, the powers not delegated to the Federal 
     Government nor prohibited to the States.
       (6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public 
     displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public 
     expression of religious faith.
       (7) Section 5 of the 14th amendment grants Congress the 
     power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.
       (8) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution grants 
     Congress the authority to except certain matters from the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal courts inferior to the Supreme 
     Court.

     SEC. 3. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.

       (a) Display of Ten Commandments.--The power to display the 
     Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered 
     by the several States or political subdivisions of such 
     States is among the powers reserved to the States, 
     respectively.
       (b) Word ``God'' in Pledge of Allegiance.--The power to 
     recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned 
     or administered by the several States or political 
     subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to 
     the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, 
     ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation 
     under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.''.
       (c) Motto ``In God We Trust''.--The power to recite the 
     national motto on or within property owned or administered by 
     the several States or political subdivisions of such States 
     is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The 
     national motto shall be, ``In God we trust''.
       (d) Exercise of Congressional Power To Except.--The subject 
     matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the 
     jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1559. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect 
to making progress toward the goal of eliminating tuberculosis, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
Senator Hutchison, Senator Inouye, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bingaman, 
and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Comprehensive Tuberculosis 
Elimination Act''. With the evolution of modern medicine, especially in 
recent years, we have the actual opportunity to do that now--eliminate 
this century-old public health threat in the United States. 
Tuberculosis was once the leading cause of death in America. In recent 
decades, developments in science and public health have transformed 
tuberculosis into a preventable and treatable disease. Yet, every year, 
thousands of Americans still become infected and die from tuberculosis.
  Experts agree that we have the ability to eliminate it. What's 
lacking is a strong national commitment to do it. More than 50 years 
ago, when the first effective drugs to treat TB were introduced and 
case rates began to decline, we began making slow but steady progress, 
and we might have eliminated it. But instead, the declining number of 
cases led to complacency and neglect. In fact, Federal categorical 
funding for TB control and prevention was discontinued in 1972, and 
wasn't restored until 1981. Efforts to control the disease broke down 
in many parts of the country.
  In the late 1980s, cases rose by 20 percent increase in TB and drug-
resistant strains began nationwide systems for dealing with the 
infection had been allowed to deteriorate. In New York City alone, more 
than $1 billion was needed to regain control of TB.
  After considerable effort, TB control was re-established and rates 
again began declining. Today, with the low number of infections and the 
expertise of public health officials, we have the opportunity to 
eradicate TB from the Nation once and for all.
  The Institute of Medicine has developed guidelines to do so, and in 
this bipartisan legislation, my colleagues and I proposed to implement 
the guidelines by authorizing $235 million for the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to expand and intensify our prevention, control, 
and elimination efforts.
  Our bill also expands support for vaccine development at the National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Experts estimate that 
$240 million will be needed to develop a safe and effective vaccine. 
Our legislation authorizes $136 million in 2004 and $162 million in 
2005, with the goal of committing the necessary resources to make the 
vaccine available by 2008 at the latest.
  We cannot allow tuberculosis to take more American lives when we have 
the ability to prevent it. It's time for a new and sustained commitment 
to the fight against tuberculosis. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1560. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for the work-related expenses of handicapped individuals; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Disable 
Workers Empowerment. Under current law, millions of disabled Americans 
are unable to claim a tax deduction for many of the expenses they incur 
as a result of their disabilities. This creates a significant barrier 
to their leading productive and rewarding lives through employment. For 
example, in order to work, an individual who uses a wheelchair might 
need to hire a personal attendant to provide transportation to and from 
the job site.
  At a time when we are doing everything in our power to assist 
individuals looking for employment, it is counterintuitive to retain 
legislation that prevents some from seeking employment. While current 
law allows a limited deduction for disabled workers' expenses, this 
deduction is limited to expenses that are necessary for the individual 
to perform work satisfactorily. This means, for example, that a blind 
individual could only claim a deduction for the cost of using a reading 
service at the workplace and during normal work hours. In addition, if 
this individual does not itemize his or her tax returns, the individual 
would receive no deduction.
  This legislation would correct this inequity. Under this bill, 
whether or not the individual itemizes, he or she would be able to 
claim a deduction for the overtime services that they require, 
regardless of itemizing his or her return. This is just one example of 
the dozens of, often expensive, services that better enable people with 
disabilities to do their jobs.
  I believe we need to do more to encourage individuals with 
disabilities and the desire to seek out employment. Current law 
perpetuates an iniquity that discourages people from living the fullest 
possible life. I believe this legislation goes a long way in correcting 
a shortcoming in current law, and will remove a barrier for millions of 
disabled workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation, and hope to see its passage this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1560

       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 ``Disabled Workers Empowerment 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR WORK-RELATED EXPENSES OF HANDICAPPED 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by 
     redesignating section 223 as section 224 and by inserting 
     after section 222 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 223. WORK-RELATED EXPENSES OF HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a handicapped individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an 
     amount

[[Page S10912]]

     equal to the amount of qualified work-related expenses paid 
     or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitation Based on Earned Income.--The amount 
     allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) for any taxable 
     year shall not exceed the handicapped individual's earned 
     income (within the meaning of section 32) reduced by the 
     employment-related expenses taken into account under section 
     21 with respect to such individual.
       ``(c) Qualified Work-Related Expenses.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `qualified work-related expenses' 
     means any of the following expenses incurred by reason of the 
     individual being a handicapped individual:
       ``(1) Expenses for attendant care services at the 
     individual's place of employment and other expenses in 
     connection with such place of employment which are necessary 
     for such individual to be able to work.
       ``(2) Expenses to provide transportation and necessary 
     personal services for the individual which are necessary for 
     such individual to be able to work (including commuting 
     between the individual's residence and place of employment).
       ``(3) Expenses to maintain the household of the individual 
     and to provide other domestic or personal services for the 
     individual which are necessary for such individual to be able 
     to work.
       ``(d) Handicapped Individual.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `handicapped individual' has the meaning 
     given to such term by section 190(b)(3).
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with other deductions.--No deduction 
     shall be allowed under section 162 for any expense to the 
     extent that a deduction for such expense is allowed under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, this 
     section shall be applied separately to each spouse.''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes 
     Other Deductions.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining adjusted gross income) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (18) the following new paragraph:
       ``(19) Work-related expenses of handicapped individuals.--
     The deduction allowed by section 223.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the item relating to section 223 
     and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 223. Work-related expenses of handicapped individuals.
``Sec. 224. Cross reference.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1561. A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court 
of the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would 
preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I 
am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich and 
Durbin.
  The Superior Court is the local court of general jurisdiction in the 
District of Columbia. The Associate Judges on the Court are selected 
through a two-step review process. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, 
usually because of a retiring judge, the District of Columbia Judicial 
Nominations Commission, solicits applicants to fill the vacancy. They 
narrow the possible number of candidates to three and send those three 
names to the President. The President then selects one of those three 
candidates to nominate and sends the nominee to the Senate for 
confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the 
Superior Court at 59.
  Recently, I was informed that nominations, currently pending in the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and an additional candidate expected 
to be nominated in the coming months, may not be able to be seated on 
the Court, even if they are confirmed by the Senate. The three seats 
that these candidates are intended to fill were left open by retiring 
judges, so they are not new seats on the Court. The cause of this 
unusual problem is the District of Columbia Family Court Act, enacted 
last Congress. That Act created three new seats for the Family Court, 
which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the 
overall cap on the number of judges seated on the Court. As a result, 
the Family Court Act effectively eliminated three existing seats in the 
other divisions of the Court, including the criminal and civil 
divisions.
  Because of this, the Governmental Affairs Committee currently has 
four nominations pending for the Superior Court, but only two seats 
left to fill. I also understand that there is yet another nomination 
expected in the coming months. Because existing law sets strict 
requirements on both the D.C. Judicial Nominations Commission as well 
as the White House on how quickly they must process potential 
candidates and make a nomination, it is unclear whether they have legal 
grounds to halt their processes. Nor is it clear as to whether, had 
they known of this problem, they would have had the power to not make 
the nominations they have already made.
  This is a highly unusual situation. Mr. President, for this body to 
have nominations pending before it for which there are no open 
positions. The bill I introduce today would rectify this problem by 
amending the District of Columbia Code to increase the cap on the 
number of Associate Judges on the Superior Court. This is not intended 
to create new seats on the Court; that was already done when the D.C. 
Family Court Act was enacted. Instead, this would preserve existing 
seats on the Court and remedy a problem that is effecting not only the 
Court, but the Senate as well. I believe that it is also important to 
not only remedy the immediate problem before the Senate, but also to 
ensure that all of the divisions of the Superior Court are fully 
staffed. This is more than just a procedural issue. It is also 
important for the citizens of the District of Columbia to know that all 
of the divisions, including criminal and civil, are operating at full 
capacity. Eliminating existing seats in the criminal and civil 
divisions will not improve the administration of justice in the 
District, but can only result in increased judicial case-load and 
delays at the Courthouse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Allen):
  S. 1562. A bill to amend selected statutes to clarify existing 
Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home 
under state law; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Home School 
Non-discrimination Act'' (HONDA). This bill would clarify several 
existing Federal statutes which inadvertently exclude home schoolers. I 
am pleased the Senator Allen is joining me in sponsoring this measure.
  All to often, Federal laws relating to education have left out the 
millions of children across the Nation who are benefitting from home 
schooling. For example, home schoolers generally cannot qualify for the 
education savings accounts, unless they live in one of 13 states where 
a home school is treated as a private school. Also, home schooled 
students have found themselves to be ineligible for student aid in some 
circumstances.
  Nearly 2 million American children were home schooled during the 
2000-2001 school year. These are good students who frequently 
outperform their public school peers. For example, in 2002 home 
schoolers as a whole averaged over 70 points higher on the Scholastic 
Aptitude Test (SAT). Also, although home schoolers only make up about 2 
percent of the U.S. school-age population, in 2003 they made up 12 
percent of the 251 spelling finalists and 5 percent of 55 geography bee 
finalists.
  These students consistently score at the highest levels of 
achievement tests and get into some of the best colleges and 
universities in our Nation. They are hard working, intelligent, and 
active in their communities. However, these students may be denied 
services available to other students because of an oversight in Federal 
law. That is not right, and HONDA will rectify the situation. I hope my 
colleagues will join me and Senator Allen in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent to print a section-by-section analysis of 
HONDA as well as the text of the bill in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-section analysis

       Sec. 1--Title.
       Sec. 2--Findings. This section merely states the findings 
     of Congress that parents have the right to home school their 
     children, home schooling is effective, and the Congress and 
     the Courts recognize the right of parents to home school 
     their children. It also states that certain federal laws 
     inadvertently exclude home schoolers, and that these laws are 
     in need of clarification.
       Sec. 3--Sense of Congress. This section states that it is 
     the sense of Congress that

[[Page S10913]]

     home schooling has made a positive contribution to our nation 
     and that parents who choose to homeschool should be 
     encouraged in their efforts.
       Sec. 4--Clarification of Provisions on Institutional and 
     Student Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965. 
     To receive federal student aid, both a student and the 
     institution accepting that student must be ``eligible'' under 
     the Higher Education Act. It's been clear since 1998 that 
     home schoolers are eligible, but regulations promulgated in 
     the late 1990's called that eligibility into question. This 
     section would merely clarify that institutions which accepted 
     home schoolers would remain eligible for federal aid.
       Sec. 5--Clarification of the Child Find Process Under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Under IDEA, 
     local school officials must seek out students who may qualify 
     for special education services. There is no requirement under 
     current law that forces school personnel to ignore the wishes 
     of the parent and evaluate that parent's child under the 
     child find process when they are found, though. Some schools, 
     however, continue to force parents to submit their children 
     for evaluation, even when those parents intend to home school 
     their children. This section clarifies that if a parent does 
     not give his or her consent, then officials are not required 
     to evaluate their child.
       Sec. 6--Clarification of the Coverdell Education Savings 
     Account as to its Applicability for Expenses Associated with 
     Students Privately Educated at Home under State Law. This 
     section states that parents would be eligible to use money 
     saved in Coverdell Savings Accounts for qualified home 
     education expenses, just as parents of private and public 
     schooled students can now use that money for qualified 
     education expenses.
       Sec. 7--Clarification of Section 444 of General Education 
     Provisions Act as to Publicly Held Records of Students 
     Privately Educated at Home Under State Law. The Family 
     Educational Records and Privacy Act makes the records of 
     public school students unavailable to the general public. In 
     many states, though, home schooled students must file 
     information with public education officials. This information 
     is not protected by the Family Educational Records and 
     Privacy Act, even though similar records of public school 
     students are. This section would rectify this situation.
       Sec. 8--Clarification of Eligibility for Students Privately 
     Educated at Home Under State Law for the Robert C. Byrd 
     Honors Scholarship Program. This section would allow home 
     schooled students to apply for the federally funded Robert C. 
     Byrd Honors Scholarship Program.
       Sec. 9--Clarification of the Fair Labor Standards Act as 
     Applied to Students Privately Educated at Home Under State 
     Law. This section would allow students who are home schooled 
     to work during traditional school hours. Since home schooled 
     students are not bound by the traditional school day and 
     since many families choose home schooling for its 
     flexibility, it makes sense for the law to accommodate this 
     flexibility. This would not affect any other child labor 
     laws.
                                  ____


                                S. 1562

       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 ``Home School Non-
     Discrimination Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The right of parents to direct the education of their 
     children is an established principle and precedent under the 
     United States Constitution.
       (2) The Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in 
     exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial 
     functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights 
     of parents.
       (3) Education by parents at home has proven to be an 
     effective means for young people to achieve success on 
     standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization 
     skills.
       (4) Young people who have been educated at home are proving 
     themselves to be competent citizens in post-secondary 
     education and the workplace.
       (5) The rise of private home education has contributed 
     positively to the education of young people in the United 
     States.
       (6) Several laws, written before and during the rise of 
     private home education, are in need of clarification as to 
     their treatment of students who are privately educated at 
     home pursuant to State law.
       (7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal 
     control of homeschooling.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) private home education, pursuant to State law, is a 
     positive contribution to the United States; and
       (2) parents who choose this alternative education should be 
     encouraged within the framework provided by the Constitution.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL AND 
                   STUDENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   ACT OF 1965.

       (a) Clarification of Institutional Eligibility.--Section 
     101(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``meeting the 
     requirements of section 484(d)(3) or'' after ``only persons'' 
     .
       (b) Clarification of Student Eligibility.--Section 484(d) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(d)) is 
     amended by striking the heading ``Students Who Are not High 
     School Graduates'' and inserting ``Satisfaction of Secondary 
     Education Standards''.

     SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF THE CHILD FIND PROCESS UNDER THE 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Section 614(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(D) Effect of absence of consent on agency obligations.--
     In any case for which there is an absence of consent for an 
     initial evaluation under this paragraph or for special 
     education or related services to a child with a disability 
     under this part--
       ``(i) the local educational agency shall not be required to 
     convene an IEP meeting or develop an IEP under this section 
     for the child; and
       ``(ii) the local educational agency shall not be considered 
     to be in violation of any requirement under this part 
     (including the requirement to make available a free 
     appropriate public education to the child) with respect to 
     the lack of an initial evaluation of the child, an IEP 
     meeting with respect to the child, or the development of an 
     IEP under this section for the child.''.

     SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF THE COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS 
                   ACCOUNT AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY FOR EXPENSES 
                   ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT 
                   HOME UNDER STATE LAW.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 530(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 
     elementary and secondary education expenses) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for home schools.--For purposes of 
     clauses (i) and (iii) of subparagraph (A), the terms `public, 
     private, or religious school' and `school' shall include any 
     home school which provides elementary or secondary education 
     if such school is treated as a home school or private school 
     under State law.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 444 OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION 
                   PROVISIONS ACT AS TO PUBLICLY HELD RECORDS OF 
                   STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE 
                   LAW.

       Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1232g; also referred to as the Family Educational 
     Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(5), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) For students in non-public education (including any 
     student educated at home or in a private school in accordance 
     with State law), directory information may not be released 
     without the written consent of the parents of such 
     student.'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``, but does not 
     include a person who has not been in attendance at such 
     agency or institution.'' and inserting ``, including any non-
     public school student (including any student educated at home 
     or in a private school as provided under State law). This 
     paragraph shall not be construed as requiring an educational 
     agency or institution to maintain education records or 
     personally identifiable information for any non-public school 
     student.''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking subparagraph (F) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(F) organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf 
     of, educational agencies or institutions for the purpose of 
     developing, validating, or administering predictive tests, 
     administering student aid programs, and improving 
     instruction, provided--
       ``(i) such studies are conducted in such a manner as will 
     not permit the personal identification of students and their 
     parents by persons other than representatives of such 
     organizations and such information will be destroyed when no 
     longer needed for the purpose for which it is conducted; and
       ``(ii) for students in non-public education, education 
     records or personally identifiable information may not be 
     released without the written consent of the parents of such 
     student.''.

     SEC. 8. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDENTS PRIVATELY 
                   EDUCATED AT HOME UNDER STATE LAW FOR THE ROBERT 
                   C. BYRD HONORS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 419F(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1070d-36(a)) is amended by inserting ``(or a home 
     school, whether treated as a home school or a private school 
     under State law)'' after ``public or private secondary 
     school''.

     SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS 
                   APPLIED TO STUDENTS PRIVATELY EDUCATED AT HOME 
                   UNDER STATE LAW.

       Subsection (l) of section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall extend the hours and periods 
     of permissible employment applicable to employees between the 
     ages of fourteen and sixteen years who are privately educated 
     at a home school (whether the home school is treated as a 
     home school or a private school under State Law) beyond such 
     hours and periods applicable to employees

[[Page S10914]]

     between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years who are 
     educated in traditional public schools.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 1563. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to 
report to Congress regarding the ownership and control of broadcast 
stations used to serve language minorities, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Clinton and I are proposing 
legislation to protect the voices of language minorities in our 
country. Representative Robert Menendez will be introducing a companion 
bill in the House after the August recess. Our bill is called the 
National Minority Media Opportunities Act. Its goal is to see that 
Americans who are members of any ``language minority'' groups under the 
Voting Rights Act--defined as American Indian, Asian Americans, Alaskan 
Natives, and Hispanic Americans--are not injured by excessive media 
concentration of companies that broadcast primarily in their native 
languages.
  Neither the Federal Communications Commission's new broadcast 
ownership regulations adopted on June 2 nor the previous regulations 
deal with the effects of growing media concentration on citizens 
relying on minority-language broadcasts for their news and information.
  The FCC's new rules are already controversial because they allow 
excessive concentration, in spite of its effect on competition, the 
diversity of views, and other major national, State, and local 
priorities. Unfortunately, the specific and often more harmful effects 
of such concentration on minority populations have gone largely 
unnoticed.
  For instance, surveys show that the majority of the nearly 40 million 
Hispanic Americans rely significantly on Spanish-language broadcast 
media for their news and information. Forty percent--nearly 16 
million--of them rely predominantly on Spanish-language broadcast 
media, and 25 percent--nearly 10 million--rely exclusively on it.
  Additional measures are clearly needed to guarantee that Americans 
who are members of minority language groups will continue to have 
access to diverse sources of news, information and cultural 
programming, and to opportunities for ownership of their media.
  Our bill addresses these concerns by requiring the FCC to hold public 
hearings, with notice and opportunity to comment, before approving the 
transfer of a license for a station serving a minority-language 
audience. It also requires the FCC to report to Congress on issues 
involving the concentration of ownership and control of minority-
language broadcast media and the effects of excessive concentration on 
competition and diversity in these minority-language markets.
  The bill will continue the Nation's strong commitment to competition 
in broadcast media and the fullest possible participation in the 
political process for all our citizens, including the growing number of 
those whose first language is English. We look forward to working with 
our colleagues in Congress to enact this needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 1564. A bill to provide for the provision by hospitals of 
emergency contraceptives to women who are survivors of sexual assault; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, every two minutes a woman is sexually 
assaulted in the United States, and an estimated 25,000 annually will 
become pregnant as a result of rape. Though there is widespread 
consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is a 
safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy after unprotected 
intercourse, studies indicate that many hospitals still do not provide 
emergency contraception to rape survivors. That is why today, along 
with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, and 
Cantwell, I am introducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape 
Emergencies Act, or CARE Act, which will ensure that women who are 
survivors of sexual assault have access to and information about 
emergency contraception regardless of where they receive medical care.
  Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are the most commonly used 
method of emergency contraception. ECPs are birth control pills taken 
in larger doses that can reduce a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by 
up to 95 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. 
I want to be clear that emergency contraception does not cause 
abortion. Instead, emergency contraception works by inhibiting 
ovulation or fertilization, or by preventing the implantation of a 
fertilized egg before a pregnancy can occur.
  Despite the documented benefits of emergency contraception, many 
hospitals neglect their responsibility to offer emergency contraception 
to sexual assault survivors. For example, a survey of emergency rooms 
in New York State found that 54 percent did not consistently provide 
emergency contraception to women who had been raped. In Pennsylvania, 
only 28 percent of hospitals routinely offer and provide emergency 
contraception to sexual assault survivors.
  In short, survivors of sexual assault are not consistently getting 
access to all the treatment options available to them to prevent an 
unwanted pregnancy. I believe it is unacceptable that a rape victim's 
access to standard care depends on the hospital to which she is taken. 
All healthcare institutions that counsel or treat women who have been 
raped should consistently inform, provide or meaningfully refer women 
for emergency contraception. Indeed, the emergency care standards of 
the American Medical Association recommend that rape survivors seeking 
medical care be counseled about their risk of pregnancy and offered 
emergency contraception.
  The legislation, which is identical to legislation recently 
introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives James 
Greenwood and Steven Rothman, would require hospitals that receive 
federal funds to offer information about and access to emergency 
contraception for victims of rape. This commonsense legislation will 
help ensure that women who have survived a heinous sexual attack will 
have access to comprehensive and compassionate emergency medical care.
  We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault victims are not 
given the opportunity to safely and effectively prevent a pregnancy 
caused by their assault. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of 
this effort to help sexual assault victims across the country receive 
the medical care they need and deserve.
  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. 1564

       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 ``Compassionate Assistance for 
     Rape Emergencies Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It is estimated that 25,000 to 32,000 women become 
     pregnant each year as a result of rape or incest. An 
     estimated 22,000 of these pregnancies could be prevented if 
     rape survivors had timely access to emergency contraception.
       (2) A 1996 study of rape-related pregnancies (published in 
     the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) found that 
     50 percent of the pregnancies described in paragraph (1) 
     ended in abortion.
       (3) Surveys have shown that many hospitals do not routinely 
     provide emergency contraception to women seeking treatment 
     after being sexually assaulted.
       (4) The risk of pregnancy after sexual assault has been 
     estimated to be 4.7 percent in survivors who were not 
     protected by some form of contraception at the time of the 
     attack.
       (5) The Food and Drug Administration has declared emergency 
     contraception to be safe and effective in preventing 
     unintended pregnancy, reducing the risk by as much as 89 
     percent.
       (6) Medical research strongly indicates that the sooner 
     emergency contraception is administered, the greater the 
     likelihood of preventing unintended pregnancy.
       (7) In light of the safety and effectiveness of emergency 
     contraceptive pills, both the American Medical Association 
     and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     have endorsed more widespread availability of such pills.

[[Page S10915]]

       (8) The American College of Emergency Physicians and the 
     American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree 
     that offering emergency contraception to female patients 
     after a sexual assault should be considered the standard of 
     care.
       (9) Nine out of ten women of reproductive age remain 
     unaware of emergency contraception. Therefore, women who have 
     been sexually assaulted are unlikely to ask for emergency 
     contraception.
       (10) New data from a survey of women having abortions 
     estimates that 51,000 abortions were prevented by use of 
     emergency contraception in 2000 and that increased use of 
     emergency contraception accounted for 43 percent of the 
     decrease in total abortions between 1994 and 2000.
       (11) It is essential that all hospitals that provide 
     emergency medical treatment provide emergency contraception 
     as a treatment option to any woman who has been sexually 
     assaulted, so that she may prevent an unintended pregnancy.

     SEC. 3. SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT; PROVISION BY HOSPITALS 
                   OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES WITHOUT CHARGE.

       (a) In General.--Federal funds may not be provided to a 
     hospital under any health-related program, unless the 
     hospital meets the conditions specified in subsection (b) in 
     the case of--
       (1) any woman who presents at the hospital and states that 
     she is a victim of sexual assault, or is accompanied by 
     someone who states she is a victim of sexual assault; and
       (2) any woman who presents at the hospital whom hospital 
     personnel have reason to believe is a victim of sexual 
     assault.
       (b) Assistance for Victims.--The conditions specified in 
     this subsection regarding a hospital and a woman described in 
     subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) The hospital promptly provides the woman with medically 
     and factually accurate and unbiased written and oral 
     information about emergency contraception, including 
     information explaining that--
       (A) emergency contraception does not cause an abortion; and
       (B) emergency contraception is effective in most cases in 
     preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex.
       (2) The hospital promptly offers emergency contraception to 
     the woman, and promptly provides such contraception to her on 
     her request.
       (3) The information provided pursuant to paragraph (1) is 
     in clear and concise language, is readily comprehensible, and 
     meets such conditions regarding the provision of the 
     information in languages other than English as the Secretary 
     may establish.
       (4) The services described in paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     are not denied because of the inability of the woman or her 
     family to pay for the services.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``emergency contraception'' means a drug, drug 
     regimen, or device that is--
       (A) used postcoitally;
       (B) prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, preventing 
     fertilization of an egg, or preventing implantation of an egg 
     in a uterus; and
       (C) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
       (2) The term ``hospital'' has the meanings given such term 
     in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, including the 
     meaning applicable in such title for purposes of making 
     payments for emergency services to hospitals that do not have 
     agreements in effect under such title.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (4) The term ``sexual assault'' means coitus in which the 
     woman involved does not consent or lacks the legal capacity 
     to consent.
       (d) Effective Date; Agency Criteria.--This section takes 
     effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act. Not later than 30 days 
     prior to the expiration of such period, the Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register criteria for carrying out 
     this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 1565. A bill to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 
1974; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, August 11, 2003, will mark the 25th 
Anniversary of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.
  I am proud to have served as one of nine original co-sponsors of this 
Act, joining Senators Abourezk, Goldwater, Gravel, Hatfield, Humphrey, 
Kennedy, Matsunaga and Stevens to introduce the Joint Resolution on 
December 15, 1977.
  The American Indian Religious Freedom Act states that it is the 
policy of the United States to preserve and protect the traditional 
religions of the American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos and Native 
Hawaiians. It was necessary to declare this policy to begin to counter 
the ill effects that stemmed from the policy of the 1880s to the 1930s 
that sought to ban the exercise of Native American traditional 
religions.
  With the American Indian Religious Freedom Act policy in place, 
Congress built on this foundation to develop more specific legislation 
in 1989 and 1990 to provide for the repatriation of Native American 
human remains, sacred objects and items of cultural patrimony that were 
taken from Native Americans during the time of that Federal policy 
attempted to eliminate the practice of their religions.
  From time to time, the Congress has also returned certain sacred 
lands to Native Americans for their traditional religious use.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs has been conducting a series of 
oversight hearings on Native American sacred places and has found that 
many of these areas are being systematically damaged and destroyed, and 
Native Americans have no specific statutory authority that would enable 
them to defend their traditional religious areas in court.
  I believe that this twenty-fifth anniversary year of the American 
Indian Religious Freedom Act is a fitting time for Congress to amend 
the Act, to assure that Native Americans have the legal means to 
protect their places of worship.
  I believe it is time that we join together in enacting legislation 
that will fulfill the policy promise of the American Indian Religious 
Freedom Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 1566. A bill to improve fire safety by creating incentives for the 
installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safety 
Incentive Act of 2003, legislation to improve fire safety and save 
lives by creating incentives for business owners to install automatic 
fire sprinkler systems. This bill would classify automatic fire 
sprinkler systems as five-year property for purposes of depreciation 
under the Tax Code.
  In 2001, fire departments across the United States responded to 1.7 
million fires. Not including victims from the September 11 terrorist 
attacks, 3,745 people died in fires, 99 of whom were firefighters. 
Fires also caused almost 21,000 civilian injuries and $8.9 billion in 
direct property damage.
  On average, fire departments respond to a fire every eighteen 
seconds, with fires breaking out in a structure every sixty seconds and 
in a residential structure every eighty seconds.
  Recent tragedies have demonstrated how the lack of effective fire 
safety precautions can have disastrous consequences. In February, 99 
concertgoers were killed when a pyrotechnic display erupted into a fire 
that devastated the concert venue in the deadliest fire in Rhode Island 
history. Unfortunately, the building was not equipped with fire 
sprinklers to respond to the fire. In my home state of New Jersey, a 
fire on the campus of Seton Hall killed three college students and 
injured 58 more people. In response to that tragedy, I introduced the 
Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act of 2003, S. 1385, which calls for 
disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus 
buildings.
  The Fire Safety Incentive Act would go further by providing economic 
incentives to business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler 
systems.
  It is difficult to dispute the effectiveness of sprinklers in 
controlling fire and saving lives and property. According to the 
National Fire Prevention Association, over a 10-year period ending in 
1998, buildings with fire sprinkler systems were proven safer. There 
were 60 percent fewer deaths in manufacturing buildings equipped with 
fire sprinkler systems than in those without. Similarly, in hotels, 
there were 91 percent fewer deaths in buildings with fire sprinkler 
systems. In fact, the NPFA has no record of a fire killing more than 
two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or 
residential building in which a fire sprinkler system was installed and 
operating properly. The same study showed that property loss from fires 
was significantly reduced by the presence of fire sprinklers, from a 
low range of 42 percent in industrial buildings to an impressive high 
of 70 percent in public assembly occupancies.
  While the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems is well 
established, the major impediment to their widespread use has simply 
been their cost. Moreover, many State and local governments lack any 
requirements for structures to contain automatic fire sprinkler 
systems.

[[Page S10916]]

  This bill would encourage businesses to install fire sprinkler 
systems by creating tax incentives to do so. Under the current Tax 
Code, assets are classified under different schedules of depreciation. 
The often-employed ``straight-line'' depreciation method uses an 
average deduction from year-to-year for 39 years. This legislation 
allows businesses to classify sprinklers under a 5-year schedule, 
creating a meaningful tax incentive to install automated sprinkler 
systems.
  This legislation would save lives and prevent many tragedies. I hope 
my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1567. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to improve the 
financial accountability requirements applicable to the Department of 
Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act. I am 
joined in introducing this legislation by the distinguished Senator 
from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, who serves as the ranking member of the 
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, 
and International Security, which I chair.
  This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 2886 that Congressman Todd 
Platts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and 
Financial Management, introduced in the House of Representatives on 
July 24, 2003. The House bill has bipartisan support from the 
leadership of the House Government Reform Committee, including Chairman 
Tom Davis, Ranking Minority Member Henry Waxman, and the vice chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Government 
Efficiency and Financial Management, Marsha Blackburn and Edolphus 
Towns.
  The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Department of Homeland 
Security is included in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as 
amended, and is subject to the same audit requirements that currently 
apply to over 100 Federal agencies.
  Improving financial management in the Federal Government to eliminate 
waste, fraud, and abuse, has long been a priority for me. The Chief 
Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) is regarded as one of the most 
important statutes that contributes significantly towards accomplishing 
this objective. The original CFO Act required 24 Federal agencies to 
submit audited financial statements to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and the Congress, thereby improving the accountability of 
Federal agencies to the taxpayer. In the 107th Congress I sponsored the 
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act that extended this audit requirement 
to all Federal agencies with budgets over $25 million, unless the 
Office of Management and Budget provided a waiver from the requirement. 
President Bush signed the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act into law on 
November 7, 2002, as Public Law 107-289.
  As my colleagues may know, an auditor may certify a financial 
statement as unqualified, also known as a clean audit, or as 
unqualified. An unqualified opinion means that an agency's financial 
statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial 
position, results of operations, and cash flows of the agency. A 
qualified opinion contains an exception to the standard opinion, but 
the exception is not of sufficient magnitude to invalidate the 
statement as a whole. Finally, an agency may also receive a disclaimer 
of opinion. A disclaimer is the worst case because it indicates that 
the agency's accounts are in such disorder that the auditor is not in a 
position to make any certification.
  This past year we have seen dramatic improvement by Federal agencies 
regarding their financial reporting and audit compliance. In February 
2003, the Office of Management and Budget announced that a record 21 of 
the 24 CFO Act agencies submitted unqualified financial audits, 
including for the first time the Agriculture Department. As a member of 
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I raised 
the issue of financial management with Secretary Ann Veneman at her 
nomination hearing on January 18, 2001, and stressed the importance of 
unqualified opinions. I was, therefore, pleased to see that the USDA 
received its first unqualified opinion this year, demonstrating 
remarkable improvement in the department's financial management.

  I also discussed financial management recently with the Department of 
Homeland Security, Secretary Tom Ridge, when he testified before the 
Government Affairs Committee on May 1, 2003. At that time, Secretary 
Ridge assured me that financial management is a top priority for the 
Department, and every effort will be made to comply with the provisions 
of the CFO Act. While Secretary Ridge and the Office of Management and 
Budget have demonstrated their commitment to financial accountability, 
the bill I am introducing today will ensure that future secretaries and 
future administrations also will comply with the CFO Act.
  The legislation I propose will ensure that the Department of Homeland 
Security is subject to the same financial management requirements as 
all other cabinet departments by accomplishing the following: It will 
include the Department in the list of agencies covered by the CFO Act, 
and make necessary adjustments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 so 
that it is consistent with the provisions of the CFO Act; it will 
ensure that the Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Homeland 
Security is subject to the same requirements as all other similarly 
situated CFOs in cabinet-level departments by providing that the CFO is 
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; it will require 
the CFO at the Department of Homeland Security to report directly to 
the Secretary and be a part of the statutorily created CFO Council; and 
it will require the Department of Homeland Security to include in each 
performance and accountability report an audit opinion of the 
Department's internal controls over its financial reporting.
  Application of the Chief Financial Officers Act to the Department of 
Homeland Security is essential to ensure that effective financial 
management and reporting requirements are adhered to by the newest, and 
one of the largest, cabinet-level departments in the Federal 
Government. The Department of Homeland Security is in the process of 
integrating 22 agencies, many with disparate financial systems and a 
number with their own CFOs. Inclusion of the Department within the 
management requirements of the CFO Act will help ensure that the 
financial process is properly managed by requiring full financial 
disclosure of the Department's financial activities. Therefore, I urge 
my colleagues to support passage of this bill to protect against 
financial waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record.

                                S. 1567

       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 ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Financial Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 901(b)(1) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (G) through (P) as 
     subparagraphs (H) through (Q), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
       ``(G) The Department of Homeland Security.''.
       (b) Appointment or Designation of CFO.--The President shall 
     appoint or designate a Chief Financial Officer of the 
     Department of Homeland Security under the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) by not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Continued Service of Current Official.--The individual 
     serving as Chief Financial Officer of the Department of 
     Homeland Security immediately before the enactment of this 
     Act may continue to serve in that position until the date of 
     the confirmation or designation, as applicable (under section 
     901(a)(1)(B) of title 31, United States Code), of

[[Page S10917]]

     a successor under the amendment made by subsection (a).
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Homeland security act of 2002.--The Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended--
       (A) in section 103 (6 U.S.C. 113)--
       (i) in subsection (d) by striking paragraph (4), and 
     redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4);
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (iii) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Chief Financial Officer.--There shall be in the 
     Department a Chief Financial Officer, as provided in chapter 
     9 of title 31, United States Code.''; and
       (B) in section 702 (6 U.S.C. 342) by striking ``shall 
     report'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting ``shall perform functions as specified in chapter 9 
     of title 31, United States Code.''.
       (2) FEMA.--Section 901(b)(2) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B), and by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (H) as subparagraphs 
     (C) through (G), respectively.

     SEC. 3. FUNCTIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       Section 3516 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) The Secretary of Homeland Security--
       ``(1) shall submit for fiscal year 2004, and for each 
     subsequent fiscal year, a performance and accountability 
     report under subsection (a) that incorporates the program 
     performance report under section 1116 of this title for the 
     Department of Homeland Security; and
       ``(2) shall include in each performance and accountability 
     report an audit opinion of the Department's internal controls 
     over its financial reporting.''.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, I am 
honored to work with my colleague Senator Fitzgerald, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, to introduce the ``Department of Homeland Security 
Financial Accountability Act.''
  Our bill would add the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the 
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), P.L. 101-576. It is a 
companion measure to bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2886, introduced in 
the House on July 24, 2003. Adding DHS would ensure that Congress will 
have timely and accurate financial information imperative for good 
governance of the resources of the Department entrusted to making our 
homeland safe.
  The CFO Act recognizes the responsibility of governmental agencies to 
be accountable to taxpayers. This bill would require the President to 
appoint, subject to Senate confirmation, a Chief Financial Officer for 
DHS, who would report directly to the Director of the Department 
regarding financial management matters. It also requires the DHS CFO to 
be a member of the CFO Council. This Council is charged with advising 
and coordinating the activities of its members' agencies on such 
matters as consolidation and modernization of financial systems, 
improved quality of financial information, financial data and 
information standards, internal controls, legislation affecting 
financial operations and organizations, and any other financial 
management matters. In addition, the bill would require the DHS CFO to 
prepare and provide for audit, annual financial statements that are 
submitted to Congress, which will aid in congressional oversight of the 
Department.
  Although the DHS bill adopted by the Govermental Affairs Committee 
last year, S. 2452, would have put the new Department under the CFO 
Act, the enacted version of the bill, P.L. 107-296, did not. All other 
Federal departments and major agencies are under the requirements of 
the Act. Since the passage of the CFO Act in 1990, tremendous 
improvements have been made in agency financial management. For 
example, all CFO Act agencies, except for the Department of Defense and 
the Agency for International Development, achieved clean opinions from 
their auditors on their financial statements in fiscal year 2003. 
Initially, none of the agencies were able to do so. Also, the General 
Accounting Office has reported that the number and severity of internal 
control problems reported for CFO Act agencies have been significantly 
reduced. We expect good corporate governance from the private sector; 
we should also expect good governance from federal agencies.
  Adding DHS to the CFO Act would also require that it meet the 
requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 
1996 (FFMIA), P.L. 104-208, which mandates that all agencies subject to 
the CFO Act meet certain financial system conditions. The goal of FFMIA 
is for agencies to have systems that provide reliable financial 
information available for day-to-day management.
  It is our responsibility to ensure the Federal Government is 
accountable to the American taxpayers. I am pleased to join with the 
Chairman of our Subcommittee to ensure that DHS has the financial 
management systems and practices in place to provide meaningful and 
timely information needed for effective and efficient management 
decision-making.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lott, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1568. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
simplify certain provisions applicable to real estate investment 
trusts; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, along with my good friends and colleagues, 
Senators Breaux, Smith, Lott, and Snowe, I rise today to introduce the 
Real Estate Investment Trust Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation 
would update the tax rules governing real estate investment trusts, 
commonly referred to as REITs, by making a number of minor but 
important changes to remove uncertainties in the law and improve their 
investment climate. Identical legislation has been introduced in the 
House of Representatives.
  REITs are publicly traded real estate companies that pass through 
their earnings to individual shareholders. Congress originally created 
REITs in 1960 to enable small investors to make investments in large-
scale, income producing real estate. By doing so, Congress made 
commercial real estate more accessible, more liquid, more transparent, 
and more attuned to investor interests. REITs have evolved to own 
properties across the country, including office buildings, apartments, 
shopping centers, and warehouses. As a result, these entities play a 
key role in helping our economy move forward by promoting investment 
and creating jobs.
  The Internal Revenue Code includes detailed rules governing the 
operations of REITs, the types of income they can earn, and the assets 
they hold. Congress last amended these provisions in 1999. The REIT 
Improvement Act is the product of almost two years of discussions with 
the staffs of the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation on how to find solutions to several thorny problem areas where 
the rules are in need of clarification or modification.
  The REIT Improvement Act includes three titles: Title I--REIT 
Corrections; Title II--FIRPTA Corrections; and Title III--REIT Savings.
  Title I includes several corrections to the REIT tax rules to remove 
some uncertainties and provide corrections largely arising from 
enactment of the REIT Modernization Act in 1999. Although these 
provisions have very little effect on revenue to the Treasury, they are 
of considerable importance to REITs because they remove uncertainties 
that interfere with the efficient operation of their businesses.
  Because publicly-held REITs have to report quarterly to the 
Securities and Exchange Commission that they are in compliance with the 
specialized income and asset tests applicable to REITs, the uncertain 
application of these tax rules creates greater difficulties in REIT 
business operators than unclear tax rules generally do for other 
corporations.

  The most important, time-sensitive provision in this title deals with 
what is called the ``straight debt'' rule. This rule, which was adopted 
in the REIT Modernization Act of 1999, prohibits REITs from owning more 
than 10 percent of the value of any other entity's securities. Although 
this rule was intended to prevent REITs from owning more than 10 
percent of the equity of another corporation, as drafted the rules 
potentially apply to many situations when individuals and businesses 
owe some sort of debt, ``security'' defined broadly, to a REIT.
  There are many situations in which REITs make non-abusive, ordinary 
loans in the course of business for which they could face loss of REIT 
status because the loans do not qualify as

[[Page S10918]]

``straight debt.'' The most common context for this situation is in the 
REIT's relationship with its tenants. For example, the REIT might lend 
the tenant money for leasehold improvements. In some circumstances such 
a loan could represent more than 10 percent of the tenant's total debt 
obligations. In such a case, although the amount owed could be small, 
it could lead to REIT disqualification. The bill we are introducing 
today would exempt from the 10 percent rule certain categories of loans 
that are non-abusive and present little or no opportunity for the REIT 
to participate in the profits of the issuer's business. This includes 
any loan from a REIT to an individual or to a government, and any debt 
arising from a real property rent arrangement.
  Other provisions in this title clarify the related party rent rules 
that limit the amount of space a taxable subsidiary may lease from its 
parent REIT, update the hedging definitions in the REIT rules, remove a 
safe harbor protection for a taxable subsidiary providing customary 
services to a REIT's tenants, and restore a formula for imposing a tax 
on REITs that fail to meet the 95 percent gross income test.
  Finally, the bill would modify a safe harbor to the prohibited 
transaction rule that imposes a 100 percent tax on the income REITs 
earn from sales of ``dealer property.'' Currently, the safe harbor is 
limited to sales of property held for the production of rental income 
that meet a series of tests. The change proposed in this title would 
extend the safe harbor to other REIT property, not just that held for 
the production of rental income.
  Title II of the bill would modify the Foreign Investment in Real 
Property Tax Act (``FIRPTA'') to remove barriers to foreign investment 
in REITs. Today, there is very little foreign investment in REITs. We 
understand that U.S. money managers routinely receive assignments to 
place foreign investment capital in the United States under which they 
have complete discretion to invest in any U.S. stocks except REITs. The 
reason they are expressly told to avoid REITs is that under FIRPTA, 
foreign investors that receive REIT capital gains distributions are 
treated as doing business in the United States.
  Title II would modify the FIRPTA rules so that a publicly traded 
REIT's payment of capital gains dividends to a foreign portfolio 
investor would no longer cause the REIT investor to be considered doing 
business in the United States. The effect of this would be to threat 
investments in REITs like investment in other corporations, and the 
provision would parallel current law governing a portfolio investor's 
sale of REIT stock.

  Title III of our bill, REIT Savings, would modify a number so-called 
``death trap'' provisions in the REIT tax rules that result in the 
disqualification of the REIT if various rules are not met. The loss of 
REIT status would be a catastrophic occurrence that the management of a 
REIT tries to avoid at all costs, so much so that they expend 
significant resources to put in place compliance measures to avoid such 
a result. A better, simpler alternative would be to build in some 
flexibility to the REIT tax rules and impose monetary penalties, in 
lieu of REIT disqualification, for the failure to meet these strict 
rules that lead to REIT disqualification.
  For example, under current law, a REIT is disqualified if more than 5 
percent of its assets are comprised of the securities of any entity, or 
if it owns more than 10 percent of the voting power or value of any 
entity. In lieu of disqualification of the REIT status for violations 
of these rules, our bill would first give REITs an opportunity to 
comply with the asset tests with respect to any violation that does not 
exceed 1 percent of their total assets. Assets in excess of the 1 
percent de minimis amount would be subject to a tax of the greater of 
$50,000 or the highest corporate tax rate multiplied by the net income 
from the assets if the violation was justified by reasonable cause.
  Under current law, a REIT is disqualified if it does not meet certain 
other tests relating to its organizational structure, the distribution 
of its income, its annual elections to the IRS, the transferability of 
its shares, and other requirements. In lieu of this disqualification, 
Title III would change the law, assess a monetary penalty of $50,000 
for each reasonable cause failure to satisfy these rules. This is a 
much more reasonable solution.
  These changes are similar to ``intermediate sanctions'' legislation 
that Congress approved a few years ago dealing with nonprofit 
organizations. That legislation imposed monetary penalties on nonprofit 
organizations for violation of certain tax rules in lieu of a 
devastating loss of the organizations' tax-exempt status. Those 
changes, like the ones we are proposing today, recognize that it is far 
more likely that an entity will be sanctioned under a penalty regime 
than under draconian rules that entirely disqualify the organization.
  The REIT Improvement Act would provide reasonable and much needed 
reforms to the rules governing a key component of our economy. We urge 
our colleagues to join with us in sponsoring this legislation and 
supporting its inclusion in tax legislation heading for passage this 
year.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Hatch in the introduction of the REIT Improvement Act of 2003. Through 
this legislation we hope to remove a number of uncertainties in the tax 
laws that hinder the management of REITs, and to improve the investment 
climate for REITs, particularly with respect to their ability to 
attract foreign capital.
  Real estate investment trusts (``REITs'') were created by Congress in 
1960 as a means of enabling small investors to invest in real estate 
through professionally managed companies. While REITs remained a very 
small sector of the real estate industry for many years--primarily as 
mortgage owning companies--with the enactment of tax reform in 1986, 
and the collapse of the real estate markets in the late 1980s--the REIT 
structure rapidly grew in the 1990s as an attractive means of owning 
real estate. Unlike the traditional form of real estate ownership, 
REITs are publicly traded corporations that go to the public capital 
markets to raise capital for their operations. Today, REITs are 
corporations or business trusts that combine the capital of many 
investors to own, operate or finance income-producing real estate, such 
as apartments, storage facilities, hotels, shopping centers, offices, 
and warehouses.
  Because REITs are publicly traded corporations that must show results 
to the financial markets, the REIT structure injects better market 
discipline into the real estate sector. This minimizes the wild 
valuation swings that have characterized the real estate sector in the 
past. It also limits the exposure of federally insured depository 
institutions that have been traditional lenders to private real estate 
companies.
  The legislation that we are introducing today, the REIT Improvement 
Act of 2003 (RIA), has three objectives. Number one, to make a number 
of minor corrections in the REIT tax rules, including most importantly 
fixing an unintended problem arising from the REIT Modernization Act of 
1999 that now causes a company to lose its REIT status by holding 
ordinary debt, e.g., a loan to a small tenant to finance tenant 
improvements.
  Number two, to eliminate a major barrier to foreign investment in 
publicly traded REITs that now treats portfolio investors as doing 
business in the U.S. merely because they receive REIT capital gains 
distributions. The change would parallel the existing Tax Code rule for 
a foreigner's sale of a publicly traded REIT's stock.
  Number three, to replace the penalty for reasonable cause violations 
of REIT tests from a loss of REIT status to a monetary penalty. This is 
similar to a test that was enacted as part of the REIT Simplification 
Act of 1977, as well as ``intermediate sanction'' legislation Congress 
passed a few years ago for tax-exempt organizations.
  Twenty-nine members of the Ways and Means Committee are cosponsoring 
identical legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1890. I 
expect we will eventually have similar support for this legislation in 
the Senate Finance Committee. I invite may colleagues to join us as 
cosponsors of this legislation in the weeks ahead.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1569. A bill to amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security

[[Page S10919]]

Act of 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, in the 
case of airline pilots who are required by regulation to retire at age 
60, to compute the actuarial value of monthly benefits in the form of a 
life annuity commencing at age 60; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act to ensure 
fair treatment of commerical airline pilot retirees. This bill will 
lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits 
allowed by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to age 60 for 
pilots, who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
to retire before age 65. With the airline industry experiencing severe 
financial distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots 
whose companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined 
benefit pension plans. This bill will slightly alter Title IV of the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation to take into account the fact that the 
pilots are required to retire at the age of 60 when calculating their 
benefits.
  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established to ensure 
that workers with defined benefit pension plans are able to receive 
some protion of their retirement income in cases where the employer 
does not have enough money to pay for all of the benefits owed. After 
the employer proves to the PBGC that the business is financially unable 
to support the plan, the PBGC takes over the plan as a trustee and 
ensures that the current and future retirees receive their pension 
benefits within the legal limits. Four of the ten largest claims in 
PBGC's history have been for airline pension plans. Although airline 
employees account for only two percent of participants historically 
covered by PBGC, they have constituted approximately 17 percent of 
claims. For example, Eastern Airlines, Pan American, Trans World 
Airlines, and US Airways have terminated their pension plans and their 
retirees rely on the PBGC for their basic pension benefits.
  The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach 
the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit 
administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the 
age of 65. Herein lies the problem. Mr. President, if pilots want to 
work beyond the age 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It 
is my understanding that the FAA does not grant many of these waivers. 
Therefore, most of the pilots, if not all, do not receive the maximum 
pension guarantee because they are forced to retire at age 60.
  The maximum guaranteed pension at the age of 65 for plans that 
terminate in 2003 is $43,977.24. However, the maximum pension guarantee 
for a retiree is decreased if a participant retires at the age of 60 to 
$28,585.20. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots in a 
difficult position. Their pensions have been reduced significantly and 
they are prohibited from reentering their profession due to the 
mandatory retirement age. They are unable to go back to their former 
jobs.
  It is my sincere hope that existing airlines are able to maintain 
their pension programs and that the change this bill makes will not be 
needed for any additional airline pension programs. However, due to the 
difficult financial conditions of many or the airlines, I feel that we 
must enact this protective measure. My legislation ensures that pilots 
are able to obtain the maximum PBGC benefit without being unfairly 
penalized for having to retire at 60, if their pension plan is 
terminated.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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:
       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 ``Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act''.

     SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Single-Employer Plan Benefits Guaranteed.--Section 
     4022(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322(b)) is amended in the flush matter 
     following paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``If, at the time of termination of a plan under this title, 
     regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     require an individual to separate from service as a 
     commercial airline pilot after attaining any age before age 
     65, paragraph (3) shall be applied to an individual who is a 
     participant in the plan by reason of such service by 
     substituting such age for age 65.''.
       (b) Multiemployer Plan Benefits Guaranteed.--Section 
     4022B(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``If, at the time of termination of a plan under 
     this title, regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration require an individual to separate from service 
     as a commercial airline pilot after attaining any age before 
     age 65, this subsection shall be applied to an individual who 
     is a participant in the plan by reason of such service by 
     substituting such age for age 65.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to benefits 
     payable on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Graham of South Carolina):
  S. 1570. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code, of 1986 to allow 
individuals a refundable credit against income tax for the purchase of 
private health insurance, and to establish State health insurance 
safety-net programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I rise to join my colleague Senator 
Lindsey Graham in reintroducing the Fair Care for the Uninsured Act, 
legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, 
have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am 
pleased that Congressman Mark Kennedy of Minnesota has joined in 
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives that 
now has 120 bipartisan cosponsors.
  As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently 
more than 40 million--remains a major national problem that must be 
addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery 
system.
  An Urban Institute study released earlier this year estimated that 
the nation annually spends about $35 billion on uncompensated care 
received by the uninsured, both those who are uninsured for a full year 
and those who lack coverage for part of a year. About two-thirds of 
uncompensated care, almost $24 billion, is provided by hospitals caring 
for uninsured people in emergency rooms, outpatient departments, and as 
inpatients. This study also estimated that a substantial portion of 
uncompensated care, perhaps as much as $30 billion, is already being 
financed by taxpayers through programs such as: Medicare and Medicaid 
Disproportionate Share Payments; Medicaid Upper Payment Limit payments; 
state and local tax appropriations, primarily to public hospitals and 
clinics; federal grants to community health centers, and federal direct 
care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian 
Health Service.
  These sobering statistics reveal that the price of being uninsured is 
very high, and they ought to serve as a catalyst for us to address the 
problem of uninsured Americans in a deliberate yet responsible fashion.
  The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward 
helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the 
creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private 
health insurance, a concept which again, enjoys bipartisan support.
  This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers now 
inhibiting access to health insurance for millions of Americans: 
discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance 
through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their 
employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from 
federal taxation, including payroll taxes. The Federal Government 
effectively subsidizes employer-provided health insurance to the tune 
of more than $80 billion per year. By contrast, individuals who 
purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They 
must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice 
as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. 
This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to 
buy their insurance outside the workplace.

[[Page S10920]]

  The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy his situation by 
creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access 
to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this 
legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up 
to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of 
private health insurance; would be available to individuals and 
families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a 
federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to 
shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs and which would be 
portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous 
coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the States could 
supplement the credit.

  I would like to apprise our colleagues of one improvement in 
particular which we have added to last session's bill that we believe 
will help bring about an even more positive impact on America's 
uninsured population. In an effort to keep premiums affordable for 
older, sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation augments funding 
provided in the Trade Act of 2002, P.L. 107-210, to State-run safety 
net insurance programs, currently operating in 30 States, and 
encourages more States to establish these important programs. And, as 
in our legislation last session of Congress, we seek to help further 
reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership 
Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free 
of costly state benefit mandates.
  This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging 
around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured 
Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical 
services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured 
Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a 
similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Congress has 
already acknowledged the promise of this idea in passing into law the 
new Health Coverage Tax Credit, which helps folks who are eligible to 
receive Trade Adjustment Assistance or pension benefit payments from 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Some 200,000 people across 
the country who meet eligibility requirements--nearly 200,000 of whom 
reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--now can obtain a tax credit 
covering 65 percent of qualified health insurance premiums. They can 
get this assistance in two ways. First, they can claim it on their tax 
forms in a lump sum next year on April 15th. Or, beginning in August, 
the Health Coverage Tax Credit program will allow eligible individuals 
and their families to directly apply the credit to their health 
insurance premiums every month. This advance payment option could make 
a big difference for families that are just getting by month-to-month 
or week-to-week.
  In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through 
cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially 
increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help 
relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. 
It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to 
the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it 
possible for low-income families to obtain coverage without paying much 
more than the available credits.
  It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not 
have access to coverage through their place of work or existing 
government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective 
market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have 
more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care 
for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none 
exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax 
encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment.
  It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senator Graham and me in 
endorsing this legislation to provide people who purchase health 
insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access 
to insurance through their employer.
  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. 1570

       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 ``Fair Care for the Uninsured 
     Act of 2003''.

        TITLE I--REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE

     SEC. 101. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as 
     section 37 and by inserting after section 35 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 36. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     subtitle an amount equal to the amount paid during the 
     taxable year for qualified health insurance for the taxpayer, 
     his spouse, and dependents.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount allowed as a credit under 
     subsection (a) to the taxpayer for the taxable year shall not 
     exceed the sum of the monthly limitations for coverage months 
     during such taxable year for each individual referred to in 
     subsection (a) for whom the taxpayer paid during the taxable 
     year any amount for coverage under qualified health 
     insurance.
       ``(2) Monthly limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The monthly limitation for an individual 
     for each coverage month of such individual during the taxable 
     year is the amount equal to \1/12\ of--
       ``(i) $1,000 if such individual is the taxpayer,
       ``(ii) $1,000 if--

       ``(I) such individual is the spouse of the taxpayer,
       ``(II) the taxpayer and such spouse are married as of the 
     first day of such month, and
       ``(III) the taxpayer files a joint return for the taxable 
     year, and

       ``(iii) $500 if such individual is an individual for whom a 
     deduction under section 151(c) is allowable to the taxpayer 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Limitation to 2 dependents.--Not more than 2 
     individuals may be taken into account by the taxpayer under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii).
       ``(C) Special rule for married individuals.--In the case of 
     an individual--
       ``(i) who is married (within the meaning of section 7703) 
     as of the close of the taxable year but does not file a joint 
     return for such year, and
       ``(ii) who does not live apart from such individual's 
     spouse at all times during the taxable year,
     the limitation imposed by subparagraph (B) shall be divided 
     equally between the individual and the individual's spouse 
     unless they agree on a different division.
       ``(3) Coverage month.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `coverage month' means, with 
     respect to an individual, any month if--
       ``(i) as of the first day of such month such individual is 
     covered by qualified health insurance, and
       ``(ii) the premium for coverage under such insurance for 
     such month is paid by the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Employer-subsidized coverage.--
       ``(i) In general.--Such term shall not include any month 
     for which such individual is eligible to participate in any 
     subsidized health plan (within the meaning of section 
     162(l)(2)) maintained by any employer of the taxpayer or of 
     the spouse of the taxpayer.
       ``(ii) Premiums to nonsubsidized plans.--If an employer of 
     the taxpayer or the spouse of the taxpayer maintains a health 
     plan which is not a subsidized health plan (as so defined) 
     and which constitutes qualified health insurance, employee 
     contributions to the plan shall be treated as amounts paid 
     for qualified health insurance.
       ``(C) Cafeteria plan and flexible spending account 
     beneficiaries.--Such term shall not include any month during 
     a taxable year if any amount is not includable in the gross 
     income of the taxpayer for such year under section 106 with 
     respect to--
       ``(i) a benefit chosen under a cafeteria plan (as defined 
     in section 125(d)), or
       ``(ii) a benefit provided under a flexible spending or 
     similar arrangement.
       ``(D) Medicare and medicaid.--Such term shall not include 
     any month with respect to an individual if, as of the first 
     day of such month, such individual--
       ``(i) is entitled to any benefits under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act, or
       ``(ii) is a participant in the program under title XIX or 
     XXI of such Act.
       ``(E) Certain other coverage.--Such term shall not include 
     any month during a taxable year with respect to an individual 
     if, at any time during such year, any benefit is provided to 
     such individual under--
       ``(i) chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
       ``(ii) chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code,
       ``(iii) chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, or
       ``(iv) any medical care program under the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act.

[[Page S10921]]

       ``(F) Prisoners.--Such term shall not include any month 
     with respect to an individual if, as of the first day of such 
     month, such individual is imprisoned under Federal, State, or 
     local authority.
       ``(G) Insufficient presence in united states.--Such term 
     shall not include any month during a taxable year with 
     respect to an individual if such individual is present in the 
     United States on fewer than 183 days during such year 
     (determined in accordance with section 7701(b)(7)).
       ``(4) Coordination with deduction for health insurance 
     costs of self-employed individuals.--In the case of a 
     taxpayer who is eligible to deduct any amount under section 
     162(l) for the taxable year, this section shall apply only if 
     the taxpayer elects not to claim any amount as a deduction 
     under such section for such year.
       ``(c) Qualified Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified health insurance' 
     means insurance which constitutes medical care as defined in 
     section 213(d) without regard to--
       ``(A) paragraph (1)(C) thereof, and
       ``(B) so much of paragraph (1)(D) thereof as relates to 
     qualified long-term care insurance contracts.
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain other contacts.--Such term shall 
     not include insurance if a substantial portion of its 
     benefits are excepted benefits (as defined in section 
     9832(c)).
       ``(d) Medical Savings Account Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a deduction would (but for paragraph 
     (2)) be allowed under section 220 to the taxpayer for a 
     payment for the taxable year to the medical savings account 
     of an individual, subsection (a) shall be applied by treating 
     such payment as a payment for qualified health insurance for 
     such individual.
       ``(2) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed under section 220 for that portion of the payments 
     otherwise allowable as a deduction under section 220 for the 
     taxable year which is equal to the amount of credit allowed 
     for such taxable year by reason of this subsection.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--The 
     amount which would (but for this paragraph) be taken into 
     account by the taxpayer under section 213 for the taxable 
     year shall be reduced by the credit (if any) allowed by this 
     section to the taxpayer for such year.
       ``(2) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under this section to any individual with respect to 
     whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another 
     taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in 
     which such individual's taxable year begins.
       ``(3) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2004, each dollar 
     amount contained in subsection (b)(2)(A) shall be increased 
     by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2003' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be 
     rounded to the nearest multiple of $50 ($25 in the case of 
     the dollar amount in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iii)).''.
       (b) Information Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code (relating to information concerning 
     transactions with other persons) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6050U. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS FOR QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who, in connection with a 
     trade or business conducted by such person, receives payments 
     during any calendar year from any individual for coverage of 
     such individual or any other individual under creditable 
     health insurance, shall make the return described in 
     subsection (b) (at such time as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe) with respect to each individual from 
     whom such payments were received.
       ``(b) Form and Manner of Returns.--A return is described in 
     this subsection if such return--
       ``(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
       ``(2) contains--
       ``(A) the name, address, and TIN of the individual from 
     whom payments described in subsection (a) were received,
       ``(B) the name, address, and TIN of each individual who was 
     provided by such person with coverage under creditable health 
     insurance by reason of such payments and the period of such 
     coverage, and
       ``(C) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably prescribe.
       ``(c) Creditable Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `creditable health insurance' means 
     qualified health insurance (as defined in section 36(c)) 
     other than--
       ``(1) insurance under a subsidized group health plan 
     maintained by an employer, or
       ``(2) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary, any other insurance covering an individual if 
     no credit is allowable under section 36 with respect to such 
     coverage.
       ``(d) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With 
     Respect to Whom Information Is Required.--Every person 
     required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish 
     to each individual whose name is required under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A) to be set forth in such return a written statement 
     showing--
       ``(1) the name and address of the person required to make 
     such return and the phone number of the information contact 
     for such person,
       ``(2) the aggregate amount of payments described in 
     subsection (a) received by the person required to make such 
     return from the individual to whom the statement is required 
     to be furnished, and
       ``(3) the information required under subsection (b)(2)(B) 
     with respect to such payments.

     The written statement required under the preceding sentence 
     shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year 
     following the calendar year for which the return under 
     subsection (a) is required to be made.
       ``(e) Returns Which Would be Required To Be Made by 2 or 
     More Persons.--Except to the extent provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of any amount 
     received by any person on behalf of another person, only the 
     person first receiving such amount shall be required to make 
     the return under subsection (a).''.
       (2) Assessable penalties.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of such Code 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating clauses 
     (xi) through (xviii) as clauses (xii) through (xix), 
     respectively, and by inserting after clause (x) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(xi) section 6050U (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance),''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (AA), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (BB) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(CC) section 6050U(d) (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance).''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 6050U. Returns relating to payments for qualified health 
              insurance.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 36 of such Code''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 36. Health insurance costs.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.

     SEC. 102. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF CREDIT FOR PURCHASERS OF 
                   QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC 7528. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT FOR 
                   PURCHASERS OF QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual, 
     the Secretary shall make payments to the provider of such 
     individual's qualified health insurance equal to such 
     individual's qualified health insurance credit advance amount 
     with respect to such provider.
       ``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `eligible individual' means any individual--
       ``(1) who purchases qualified health insurance (as defined 
     in section 36(c)), and
       ``(2) for whom a qualified health insurance credit 
     eligibility certificate is in effect.
       ``(c) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Eligibility 
     Certificate.--For purposes of this section, a qualified 
     health insurance credit eligibility certificate is a 
     statement furnished by an individual to the Secretary which--
       ``(1) certifies that the individual will be eligible to 
     receive the credit provided by section 36 for the taxable 
     year,
       ``(2) estimates the amount of such credit for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(3) provides such other information as the Secretary may 
     require for purposes of this section.
       ``(d) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Advance Amount.--
     For purposes of this section, the term `qualified health 
     insurance credit advance amount' means, with respect to any 
     provider of qualified health insurance, the Secretary's 
     estimate of the amount of credit allowable under section 36 
     to the individual for the taxable year which is attributable 
     to the insurance provided to the individual by such provider.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     77 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:


[[Page S10922]]


``Sec. 7528. Advance payment of health insurance credit for purchasers 
              of qualified health insurance.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2004.

            TITLE II--STATE HIGH RISK HEALTH INSURANCE POOLS

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR OPERATION OF STATE HIGH 
                   RISK HEALTH INSURANCE POOLS.

       Section 2745(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     inserted by section 201 of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-210), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``established a 
     qualified health risk pool that'' and all that follows 
     through the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting 
     ``established a qualified health risk pool that provides for 
     premium rates and covered benefits for such coverage 
     consistent with standards included in the NAIC Model Health 
     Plan for Uninsurable Individuals'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``number of uninsured 
     individuals'' and inserting ``enrollees in qualified high 
     risk pools''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``$40,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004'' and inserting 
     ``$40,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $75,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2009''.

             TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS

     SEC. 301. EXPANSION OF ACCESS AND CHOICE THROUGH INDIVIDUAL 
                   MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS (IMAS).

       The Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new title:

            ``TITLE XXIX--INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS

     ``SEC. 2901. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION 
                   (IMA).

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this title, the terms 
     `individual membership association' and `IMA' mean a legal 
     entity that meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) Organization.--The IMA is an organization operated 
     under the direction of an association (as defined in section 
     2904(1)).
       ``(2) Offering health benefits coverage.--
       ``(A) Different groups.--The IMA, in conjunction with those 
     health insurance issuers that offer health benefits coverage 
     through the IMA, makes available health benefits coverage in 
     the manner described in subsection (b) to all members of the 
     IMA and the dependents of such members in the manner 
     described in subsection (c)(2) at rates that are established 
     by the health insurance issuer or a policy or product 
     specific basis and that may vary only as permissible under 
     State law.
       ``(B) Nondiscrimination in coverage offered.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the IMA may not 
     offer health benefits coverage to a member of an IMA unless 
     the same coverage is offered to all such members of the IMA.
       ``(ii) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as requiring or permitting a health insurance 
     issuer to provide coverage outside the service area of the 
     issuer, as approved under State law, or preventing a health 
     insurance issuer from excluding or limiting the coverage on 
     any individual, subject to the requirement of section 2741.
       ``(C) No financial underwriting.--The IMA provides health 
     benefits coverage only through contracts with health 
     insurance issuers and does not assume insurance risk with 
     respect to such coverage.
       ``(3) Geographic areas.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as preventing the establishment and operation of 
     more than one IMA in a geographic area or as limiting the 
     number of IMAs that may operate in any area.
       ``(4) Provision of administrative services to purchasers.--
       ``(A) In general.--The IMA may provide administrative 
     services for members. Such services may include accounting, 
     billing, and enrollment information.
       ``(B) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as preventing an IMA from serving as an 
     administrative service organization to any entity
       ``(5) Filing information.--The IMA files with the Secretary 
     information that demonstrates the IMA's compliance with the 
     applicable requirements of this title.

       ``(b) Health Benefits Coverage Requirements.--
       ``(1) Compliance with consumer protection requirements.--
     Any health benefits coverage offered through an IMA shall--
       ``(A) be underwritten by a health insurance issuer that--
       ``(i) is licensed (or otherwise regulated) under State law,
       ``(ii) meets all applicable State standards relating to 
     consumer protection, subject to section 2902(2), and
       ``(iii) offers the coverage under a contract with the IMA; 
     and
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2) and section 2902(2), be 
     approved or otherwise permitted to be offered under State 
     law.
       ``(2) Examples of types of coverage.--The benefits coverage 
     made available through an IMA may include, but is not limited 
     to, any of the following if it meets the other applicable 
     requirements of this title:
       ``(A) Coverage through a health maintenance organization.
       ``(B) Coverage in connection with a preferred provider 
     organization.
       ``(C) Coverage in connection with a licensed provider-
     sponsored organization.
       ``(D) Indemnity coverage through an insurance company.
       ``(E) Coverage offered in connection with a contribution 
     into a medical savings account or flexible spending account.
       ``(F) Coverage that includes a point-of-service option.
       ``(G) Any combination of such types of coverage.
       ``(3) Health insurance coverage options.--An IMA shall 
     include a minimum of 2 health insurance coverage options. At 
     least 1 option shall meet all applicable State benefit 
     mandates.
       ``(4) Wellness bonuses for health promotion.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be construed as precluding a health 
     insurance issuer offering health benefits coverage through an 
     IMA from establishing premium discounts or rebates for 
     members or from modifying otherwise applicable copayments or 
     deductibles in return for adherence to programs of health 
     promotion and disease prevention so long as such programs are 
     agreed to in advance by the IMA and comply with all other 
     provisions of this title and do not discriminate among 
     similarly situated members.
       ``(c) Members; Health Insurance Issuers.--
       ``(1) Members.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under rules established to carry out 
     this title, with respect to an individual who is a member of 
     an IMA, the individual may apply for health benefits coverage 
     (including coverage for dependents of such individual) 
     offered by a health insurance issuer through the IMA.
       ``(B) Rules for enrollment.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall preclude an IMA from establishing rules of enrollment 
     and reenrollment of members. Such rules shall be applied 
     consistently to all members within the IMA and shall not be 
     based in any manner on health status-related factors.
       ``(2) Health insurance issuers.--The contract between an 
     IMA and a health insurance issuer shall provide, with respect 
     to a member enrolled with health benefits coverage offered by 
     the issuer through the IMA, for the payment of the premiums 
     collected by the issuer.

     ``SEC. 2902. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS AND REQUIREMENTS.

       ``State laws insofar as they relate to any of the following 
     are superseded and shall not apply to health benefits 
     coverage made available through an IMA:
       ``(1) Benefit requirements for health benefits coverage 
     offered through an IMA, including (but not limited to) 
     requirements relating to coverage of specific providers, 
     specific services or conditions, or the amount, duration, or 
     scope of benefits, but not including requirements to the 
     extent required to implement title XXVII or other Federal law 
     and to the extent the requirement prohibits an exclusion of a 
     specific disease from such coverage.
       ``(2) Any other requirement (including limitations on 
     compensation arrangements) that, directly or indirectly, 
     preclude (or have the effect of precluding) the offering of 
     such coverage through an IMA, if the IMA meets the 
     requirements of this title.
     Any State law or regulation relating to the composition or 
     organization of an IMA is preempted to the extent the law or 
     regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

     ``SEC. 2903. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer this 
     title and is authorized to issue such regulations as may be 
     required to carry out this title. Such regulations shall be 
     subject to Congressional review under the provisions of 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code. The Secretary shall 
     incorporate the process of `deemed file and use' with respect 
     to the information filed under section 2901(a)(5)(A) and 
     shall determine whether information filed by an IMA 
     demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of 
     this title. The Secretary shall exercise authority under this 
     title in a manner that fosters and promotes the development 
     of IMAs in order to improve access to health care coverage 
     and services.
       ``(b) Periodic Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report every 30 months, during the 10-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of the rules promulgated by 
     the Secretary to carry out this title, on the effectiveness 
     of this title in promoting coverage of uninsured individuals. 
     The Secretary may provide for the production of such reports 
     through one or more contracts with appropriate private 
     entities.

     ``SEC. 2904. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) Association.--The term `association' means, with 
     respect to health insurance coverage offered in a State, an 
     association which--
       ``(A) has been actively in existence for at least 5 years;
       ``(B) has been formed and maintained in good faith for 
     purposes other than obtaining insurance;
       ``(C) does not condition membership in the association on 
     any health status-related factor relating to an individual 
     (including an employee of an employer or a dependent of an 
     employee); and
       ``(D) does not make health insurance coverage offered 
     through the association available other than in connection 
     with a member of the association.

[[Page S10923]]

       ``(2) Dependent.--The term `dependent', as applied to 
     health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance 
     issuer licensed (or otherwise regulated) in a State, shall 
     have the meaning applied to such term with respect to such 
     coverage under the laws of the State relating to such 
     coverage and such an issuer. Such term may include the spouse 
     and children of the individual involved.
       ``(3) Health benefits coverage.--The term `health benefits 
     coverage' has the meaning given the term health insurance 
     coverage in section 2791(b)(1).
       ``(4) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance 
     issuer' has the meaning given such term in section 
     2791(b)(2).
       ``(5) Health status-related factor.--The term `health 
     status-related factor' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 2791(d)(9).
       ``(6) IMA; individual membership association.--The terms 
     `IMA' and `individual membership association' are defined in 
     section 2901(a).
       ``(7) Member.--The term `member' means, with respect to the 
     IMA, an individual who is a member of the association to 
     which the IMA is offering coverage.''.

                          ____________________