[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.''.
____________________