[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12194-S12203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1678. A bill to provide for the establishment of the Uintah 
Research and Curatorial Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the 
States of Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uintah Research 
and Curatorial Center Act. This bill would authorize the National Park 
Service, NPS, to construct a research and curatorial facility for 
Dinosaur National Monument and its partner, the Utah Field House of 
Natural History Museum (Museum), in Vernal, UT. The facility would be 
co-located with the Museum while helping to preserve, protect, and 
exhibit the vast treasures of one of the most productive sites of 
dinosaur bones in the world.
  Since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones by the paleontologist 
Earl Douglass in 1909, and the subsequent proclamation as a national 
monument in 1915 by President Woodrow Wilson, the Dinosaur National 
Monument has been a haven for both amateur and expert dinosaur 
enthusiasts. At present, Dinosaur National Monument has more than 
600,000 items in its museum collection. Unfortunately, these items are 
currently stored in 17 different facilities throughout the park. Many 
of these resources are at risk due to the failure of the scattered 
facilities to meet minimum National Park Service storage standards. A 
new research and curatorial facility is greatly needed to bring the 
park's collections up to standard and to ensure its protection.
  The curatorial facility will also fill a critical role as a 
collection center for the park and partners' fossil, archaeological, 
natural resource operations and collections, and park archives. 
Moreover, in these days of limited budgets, the decision to co-locate 
this facility with the State's museum will also save taxpayer dollars. 
The State of Utah is nearing completion of their new Field House Museum 
at a cost to the State of $6.5 million dollars. Because of the co-
location, NPS staff, visiting scholars, interns and volunteers would 
have access to the State museum's space for exhibit, classroom, 
conferencing, education, restrooms, public access, parking, and other 
needs not included in the curatorial facility.
  The 22,500 square foot facility will be built outside the boundaries 
of the park on land donated to the Park Service by the City of Vernal 
and Uintah County. The legislation will also permit the Park Service to 
accept the donation of the land, valued at approximately $1.5 million 
dollars. The Park Service estimates the total cost of adding the 
research and curatorial center to be $8.7 million dollars.
  Other Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Forest Service, who are also in need of collections storage, have 
become minor partners and would utilize a small portion of the storage 
facility. An additional partner in the project, the Intermountain 
Natural History Association, has agreed to fund and carry out the soil 
and environmental testing necessary to permit the Park Service to 
accept the donation.
  It is imperative that we care for these paleontological resources and 
ensure their availability to future generations, both for scientific 
study and the enjoyment of the public. This legislation is a proactive 
approach to accomplishing those objectives and is an excellent example 
of a cost effective partnership between the National Park Service, the 
State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, the City of Vernal, and 
Uintah County of which this Congress ought to applaud and support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING:
  S. 1679. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
the depreciation recovery period for roof systems; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Realistic 
Roofing Tax Treatment Act of 2003 which would amend the Internal 
Revenue Code to provide a more realistic depreciation schedule for 
commercial roofs.
  In 1981, Congress eliminated component depreciation and put into 
place a general depreciation period of 15 years for all building 
components. In 1993, the recovery period for nonresidential property 
was extended to 39 years in order to raise revenue. The current 39-year 
depreciation period is not a realistic measure of the average life span 
of a commercial roof. It is a disincentive for building owners to 
replace non-performing roofs, because replacing failing roofs more 
frequently than 39 years means carrying the burden of roofs that no 
longer exist on the books.
  A study by Ducker Worldwide, a leading industrial research firm, 
found the current aggregate commercial roof life span is 17.45 years. 
Ducker estimates that a shortened depreciation schedule will stimulate 
economic activity and generate 30,000 new jobs in a two-year period. I 
am particularly concerned that we help America's manufacturers and this 
legislation will provide them immediate tax relief. It will also 
provide relief to America's small businesses, which find it more 
difficult to absorb the impact of capital improvement expenditures than 
larger entities.
  Congressman Foley will shortly be introducing similar legislation in 
the House of Representatives. I am pleased that this proposal has the 
support of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied 
Workers, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of 
legislation when it comes before the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING.
  S. 1681. A bill to exempt the natural aging process in the 
determination of the production period for distilled spirits under 
section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill 
that will address an issue of inequity in the U.S. Tax Code. Current 
tax law requires that certain production expenses of a product for sale 
by a manufacturer be capitalized into the inventory cost of that 
product. One such expense is the allocable portion of interest expenses 
that are attributable to equipment used in that production. However, 
this capitalization requirement only applies when the product being 
produced has a production period in excess of 2 years.
  The bill I am introducing today will clarify that, for the production 
of distilled spirits, the production period for purposes of this 
capitalization rule includes only the distilling of the liquor--it does 
not include time that the liquors are naturally aged following the 
distillation.
  This is an important clarification to insure that distilled spirits 
that are aged for long periods of time--in some cases many years--do 
not face adverse tax consequences merely due to this aging process. The 
clarification of this inequity will aid many small distilleries located 
in the United States by not forcing them to carry additional inventory 
costs over long periods of time.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1682. A bill to provide for a test census of Americans residing 
abroad, and to require that such individuals be included in the 2010 
decennial census; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I want to introduce legislation 
to direct the Census Bureau to develop a test census of Americans 
living abroad in 2004. The long-term goal is to develop methods to 
include Americans living overseas in our next decennial census in 2010.
  There are approximately 3 million to 6 million private American 
citizens living and working overseas, and many of them continue to vote 
and pay taxes in the United States. These citizens help increase 
exports of American goods, because they traditionally buy American, 
sell American,and create business opportunities for American companies 
and workers. Their role in strengthening the U.S. economy, creating 
jobs in the United States, and extending U.S. influence around the 
globe is vital to the well-being of our Nation.
  I believe that Americans abroad deserve to be counted, and to achieve 
this goal we must begin with a test census next year.
  For many years, I have been proud to work on policies to ensure that 
Americans living abroad are treated fairly.

[[Page S12195]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH:
  S. 1683. A bill to provide for a report on the parity of pay and 
benefits among Federal law enforcement officers and to establish an 
exchange program between Federal law enforcement employees and State 
and local law enforcement employees; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs
  Mr. VOINOVICH. 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. 1683

       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 ``Federal Law Enforcement Pay 
     and Benefits Parity Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT PAY AND BENEFITS PARITY REPORT.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``law 
     enforcement officer'' means an individual--
       (1)(A) who is a law enforcement officer defined under 
     section 8331 or 8401 of title 5, United States Code; or
       (B) the duties of whose position include the investigation, 
     apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or 
     convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United 
     States; and
       (2) who is employed by the Federal Government.
       (b) Report.--Not later than April 30, 2004, the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall submit a report to the President 
     of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the appropriate committees and subcommittees of Congress 
     that includes--
       (1) a comparison of classifications, pay, and benefits 
     among law enforcement officers across the Federal Government; 
     and
       (2) recommendations for ensuring, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the elimination of disparities in 
     classifications, pay and benefits for law enforcement 
     officers throughout the Federal Government.

     SEC. 3. EMPLOYEE EXCHANGE PROGRAM BETWEEN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 
                   AND EMPLOYEES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``employing agency'' means the Federal, State, 
     or local government agency with which the participating 
     employee was employed before an assignment under the Program;
       (2) the term ``participating employee'' means an employee 
     who is participating in the Program; and
       (3) the term ``Program'' means the employee exchange 
     program established under subsection (b).
       (b) Establishment.--The President shall establish an 
     employee exchange program between Federal agencies that 
     perform law enforcement functions and agencies of State and 
     local governments that perform law enforcement functions.
       (c) Conduct of Program.--The Program shall be conducted in 
     accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (d) Qualifications.--An employee of an employing agency who 
     performs law enforcement functions may be selected to 
     participate in the Program if the employee--
       (1) has been employed by that employing agency for a period 
     of more than 3 years;
       (2) has had appropriate training or experience to perform 
     the work required by the assignment;
       (3) has had an overall rating of satisfactory or higher on 
     performance appraisals from the employing agency during the 
     3-year period before being assigned to another agency under 
     this section; and
       (4) agrees to return to the employing agency after 
     completing the assignment for a period not less than the 
     length of the assignment.
       (d) Written Agreement.--An employee shall enter into a 
     written agreement regarding the terms and conditions of the 
     assignment before beginning the assignment with another 
     agency.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Bunning, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Craig, Mr. Baucus, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Clinton, and 
        Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1686. A bill to reauthorize the adoption incentive payments 
program under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bunning and I 
are happy to introduce the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, a bill that 
would extend and improve the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. 
Across the country there are thousands of children of all ages and 
needs who are waiting to be adopted into stable families. This 
legislation provides a reward to States that place an emphasis on 
finding loving homes for children who are in foster care.
  The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 rewarded States with cash 
incentives for increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster 
care, concentrating on children with special needs. Adoption levels 
were on the rise before the introduction of this legislation, but grew 
even faster after implementation of the program. Studies project that 
an additional 34,000 children were adopted during the first 3 years of 
the program. Currently each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico have received incentive payments from the increased 
number of adoptions. My home State of Iowa just received a payment of 
$524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care 
permanent homes. The results are clear, adoption incentives are 
working.
  There are many people in this country who have opened their arms to 
children that do not fit the typical mold. The Lippert family of 
Council Bluffs, IA is just one example. Over the last 25 years, they 
have adopted 16 children, in addition to their two biological children. 
Their doors are still open to children in need. Within the next 6 
months their nest will become even larger; they have three teenage 
girls who are in the process of being adopted. All but one of these 
children have special needs, ranging from emotional to physical 
disabilities. None of these challenges have stopped the Lippert family 
from helping their children become successful members of the community. 
The Lippert family has given these children a chance to be part of a 
loving and permanent family, an opportunity they would otherwise not 
have had.
  But much remains to be done. While adoption incentives have helped 
states place a large number of children in families, there are still 
thousands of children without such luck. The incentive program helps to 
promote the needs of children for whom it is challenging to find an 
adoptive home. Take for example, children over the age of 9. The 
probability that these children will ever find a permanent home exceeds 
the probability they will be adopted into a loving family. This 
legislation adds an incentive for States to increase the number of 
older children adopted out of foster care.
  Adoption is a positive life-changing experience. My bill builds upon 
the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. It 
recognizes these successes and continues to challenge States to remove 
children from foster care and place them with a permanent family. 
Adoptions give children a loving home and families an opportunity to 
share their love with a child in need. I encourage the Senate to 
consider this important piece of legislation and continue to reward 
States that are working to place children in permanent homes.
  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. 1686

       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 ``Adoption Promotion Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1997, the Congress passed the Adoption and Safe 
     Families Act of 1997 to promote comprehensive child welfare 
     reform to ensure that consideration of children's safety is 
     paramount in child welfare decisions, and to provide a 
     greater sense of urgency to find every child a safe, 
     permanent home.
       (2) The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 also created 
     the Adoption Incentives program, which authorizes incentive 
     payments to States to promote adoptions, with additional 
     incentives provided for the adoption of foster children with 
     special needs.
       (3) Since 1997, all States, the District of Columbia, and 
     Puerto Rico have qualified for incentive payments for their 
     work in promoting adoption of foster children.
       (4) Between 1997 and 2002, adoptions increased by 64 
     percent, and adoptions of children with special needs 
     increased by 63 percent; however, 542,000 children remain in 
     foster care, and 126,000 are eligible for adoption.
       (5) Although substantial progress has been made to promote 
     adoptions, attention should be focused on promoting adoption 
     of older children. Recent data suggest that half of the 
     children waiting to be adopted are age 9 or older.

[[Page S12196]]

     SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 473A of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) the number of foster child adoptions in the State 
     during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster 
     child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; or
       ``(B) the number of older child adoptions in the State 
     during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of older child 
     adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;''.
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``through 2007''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Determination of numbers of adoptions based on afcars 
     data.--The Secretary shall determine the numbers of foster 
     child adoptions, of special needs adoptions that are not 
     older child adoptions, and of older child adoptions in a 
     State during each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007, for 
     purposes of this section, on the basis of data meeting the 
     requirements of the system established pursuant to section 
     479, as reported by the State and approved by the Secretary 
     by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by inserting ``that are not older child adoptions'' 
     after ``adoptions'' each place it appears; and
       (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which 
     the number of older child adoptions in the State during the 
     fiscal year exceeds the base number of older child adoptions 
     for the State for the fiscal year.'';
       (4) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(A) with respect to fiscal year 2003, the number of 
     foster child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the 
     number of foster child adoptions in the State in the fiscal 
     year for which the number is the greatest in the period that 
     begins with fiscal year 2002 and ends with the fiscal year 
     preceding that subsequent fiscal year.'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``that are not 
     older child adoptions'' after ``adoptions''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(A) with respect to fiscal year 2003, the number of 
     special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions in 
     the State in fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the 
     number of special needs adoptions that are not older child 
     adoptions in the State in the fiscal year for which the 
     number is the greatest in the period that begins with fiscal 
     year 2002 and ends with the fiscal year preceding that 
     subsequent fiscal year.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Base number of older child adoptions.--The term `base 
     number of older child adoptions for a State' means--
       ``(A) with respect to fiscal year 2003, the number of older 
     child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the 
     number of older child adoptions in the State in the fiscal 
     year for which the number is the greatest in the period that 
     begins with fiscal year 2002 and ends with the fiscal year 
     preceding that subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(6) Older child adoptions.--The term `older child 
     adoptions' means the final adoption of a child who has 
     attained 9 years of age if--
       ``(A) at the time of the adoptive placement, the child was 
     in foster care under the supervision of the State; or
       ``(B) an adoption assistance agreement was in effect under 
     section 473 with respect to the child.'';
       (5) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) $43,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``, or under any other law for grants 
     under subsection (a),'' after ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2008'';
       (6) in subsection (i)(4), by striking ``1998 through 2000'' 
     and inserting ``2004 through 2006''; and
       (7) by striking subsection (j).
       (b) Report on Adoption and Other Permanency Options for 
     Children in Foster Care.--Not later than October 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on State 
     efforts to promote adoption and other permanency options for 
     children in foster care, with special emphasis on older 
     children in foster care. In preparing this report, the 
     Secretary shall review State waiver programs and consult with 
     representatives from State governments, public and private 
     child welfare agencies, and child advocacy organizations to 
     identify promising approaches.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT 
                   AFCARS REPORT.

       Section 474 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 674) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) If the Secretary finds that a State has failed to 
     submit to the Secretary data, as required by regulation, for 
     the data collection system implemented under section 479, the 
     Secretary shall, within 30 days after the date by which the 
     data was due to be so submitted, notify the State of the 
     failure and that payments to the State under this part will 
     be reduced if the State fails to submit the data, as so 
     required, within 6 months after the date the data was 
     originally due to be so submitted.
       ``(2) If the Secretary finds that the State has failed to 
     submit the data, as so required, by the end of the 6-month 
     period referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, then, 
     notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section and any 
     regulations promulgated under section 1123A(b)(3), the 
     Secretary shall reduce the amounts otherwise payable to the 
     State under this part, for each quarter ending in the 6-month 
     period (and each quarter ending in each subsequent 
     consecutively occurring 6-month period until the Secretary 
     finds that the State has submitted the data, as so required), 
     by--
       ``(A) \1/6\ of 1 percent of the total amount expended by 
     the State for administration of foster care activities under 
     the State plan approved under this part in the quarter so 
     ending, in the case of the 1st 6-month period during which 
     the failure continues; or
       ``(B) \1/4\ of 1 percent of the total amount so expended, 
     in the case of the 2nd or any subsequent such 6-month 
     period.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

        The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
     October 1, 2003.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Grassley 
and a bipartisan coalition in sponsoring the Adoption Promotion Act of 
2003. This legislation will reauthorize and expand on the adoption 
bonuses created as part of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  The Adoption and Safe Families Act stated clearly that a child's 
health and safety are paramount, and that every child deserves a 
permanent home. Key policy changes were made to promote permanency, 
including streamlining the process and creating incentives for 
adoption. Since 1997, the number of adoptions from foster care 
increased by 64 percent, and the number of adoptions of children with 
special needs increased by 63 percent. This is wonderful news for the 
children and families. But over 500,000 children are still in foster 
care, and 126,000 of those children have adoption as a goal.
  This legislation would reauthorize the existing adoption bonuses, and 
it would create a new bonus for children over the age of 9 who 
represent almost half of the children waiting for adoption. The 
Adoption Promotion Act is an important next step to improving our child 
welfare system.
  In West Virginia, over 900 children have been adopted from the foster 
care system since enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This 
is good news for the children and families, but many more children in 
my State and across the country are waiting for a safe, permanent home.
  Adoption is a wonderful event that changes a child's life and creates 
a special family. Today, in addition to introducing this legislation, 
the Congressional Adoption Caucus will celebrate its Angels in Adoption 
Award, including an award to a very special West Virginian, Millie 
Mairs, who has worked on adoption issues in my State for almost 30 
years at the West Virginia Children's Home Society. Her work has helped 
to change many lives.
  This legislation is key, but it is only part of the puzzle to 
improving our foster care system which, according to the findings of 
the Child and Family Service Reviews, needs to be strengthened. As more 
children move into adoption, especially older children, we must become 
more aware and respond to the needs for post-adoption services. I hope 
that future action on child welfare reform will be bipartisan, like the 
Adoption Promotion Act. It is encouraging to know that the Pew 
Commission on Children in Foster Care is working to develop 
recommendations regarding child welfare financing and the role of the 
courts in child welfare policy. Hopefully, these recommendations can 
help forge bipartisan consensus for future changes that will enhance 
the lives of our most vulnerable children, those in foster care.

[[Page S12197]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
introducing this bill to reauthorize the Adoption Incentives Program.
  The Adoption Incentives Program was created in 1997 as a part of the 
Adoption and Safe Families Act to encourage and expedite adoptions for 
children in foster care.
  Under the current program, States are given incentive payments for 
increased adoptions of all foster children, as well as for adoptions of 
children with special needs. This reauthorization bill will continue 
that program, while offering new, targeted incentives for adoptions of 
older children.
  There is an overwhelming need for adoption of foster children. Over 
550,000 children are currently languishing in foster care in the United 
States. Of this number, more than 165,000 are children who will never 
be adopted.
  Only half of the children in foster care graduate from high school 
and only 11 percent of that number go to college. Within 1 year of 
leaving foster care, 49 percent of these young people are unemployed 
and within 3 years of leaving foster care, up to 45 percent have been 
arrested and almost 75 percent have been arrested at least once.
  Providing these children with a permanent, stable family helps them 
become successful, contributing members of society. I am proud to lend 
my support to this important legislation that will help give these 
young people a home.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like the opportunity to talk for 
a few minutes with my colleague from Iowa about the important role of 
adoption and foster care. Today, I am proud to be supporting 
legislation that the Senator from Iowa is introducing to reauthorize 
the Adoption Incentive Program. This is an important program that 
encourages States to do all they can to find permanent homes for 
children in foster care.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate that the Senator from Kentucky has worked 
so hard with me on the reauthorization of the Adoption Incentive 
Program. I also appreciate the lead the Senator took several months ago 
when he introduced the original legislation to reauthorize this 
program, which was based on the administration's proposal. This was an 
important step to help get the ball rolling on this program's 
reauthorization.
  Our legislation builds upon the Adoption Incentive Program created in 
the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997. This bill sets the 
authorization level for this program at $43 million for each of fiscal 
year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Through this legislation, States 
would continue to be rewarded for all increased adoptions of children 
in foster care.
  States that earn incentive payments for increased adoptions of foster 
children would also continue to be rewarded for increased adoptions of 
special needs children. However, the special needs payment would be 
limited only to adoptions of special needs children who are under age 9 
at the time the adoption is finalized.
  Senator Bunning, as you well know, our bill would create a third 
incentive payment, for each increased adoption of all children in 
foster care who are age 9 or older at the time of adoption. This is 
important because children over the age of nine are less likely to find 
a permanent adoptive home. In fact, the probability that these children 
never find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be 
adopted into a loving family.
  Mr. BUNNING. I am pleased that we are continuing the bonuses for 
States that increase the number of adoptions each year, along with 
keeping the additional incentive for adoptions of special needs 
children and providing a new incentive for States to focus on the 
adoptions of older children.
  I am proud to say that Kentucky has also done fairly well under the 
Adoption Incentive Program over the years, and I am glad we are 
continuing the program. From 1998 to 2001, Kentucky received $1.6 
million adoption incentives. For 2002, the Department of Health and 
Human Services recently announced that my State will receive $204,000 
in adoption incentives.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. My home State of Iowa and its child welfare program has 
also benefited from this program. Last year, Iowa received a payment of 
$524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care, 
permanent homes. Our States' successes underscore the results of this 
program; adoption incentives are working.
  Mr. BUNNING. I am sure the Senator from Iowa will agree with me that 
we need to make it as easy as possible for loving families to either 
adopt or become foster parents for children in need. There is nothing 
more special than a family opening up their home to a child and 
providing a safe and supportive environment. This is why I have worked 
on adoption and foster care issues for so long in Congress.
  In fact, last year I was pleased that one of my foster care 
initiatives was passed as part of the 2002 economic stimulus bill. Many 
families who take in foster care children receive stipends from the 
placement agency which helps pay for food, clothes and other expenses.
  In the past, some of these stipends were tax-free for families, while 
others were taxable. I didn't feel that was fair, so my provision made 
all stipends that foster care families receive to be tax free. This 
provision corrected an inconsistency in the tax code that unfairly 
punished foster care families and the children for whom they care, and 
I was happy we could finally correct this problem.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. In the recent past, Congress has also taken some 
positive steps to promote adoption through tax credit. In 2001, as 
chairman of the Finance Committee, I extended and expanded two 
important provisions which provide tax relief for adoptive families.
  The 2001 tax bill ensured that neither adoption tax credit, nor the 
exclusion from income for qualified employer-paid adoption expenses 
expired. In addition, the amount of each of these benefits was 
doubled--i.e., from $5,000 to $10,000 per qualifying child. Finally, in 
the case of special needs adoptions, Congress eliminated expense 
reporting requirements thus ensuring that the families who take special 
needs children into their homes receive the maximum relief possible 
under these provisions, while minimizing their administrative burdens.
  Mr. BUNNING. I certainly agree with you that the adoption tax credits 
are good policy, and I am very familiar with them. In fact, back in 
1996, I worked as a Member of the Ways and Means Committee to pass the 
original legislation providing for the tax credits to help families 
afford to adopt children. We finally got this credit passed as part of 
the Small Business Job Protection Act which passed over seven years 
ago. I was very supportive of the provisions in the 2001 tax bill to 
expand these credits, but would like to take them one step further.
  Within the next couple of weeks, I will be introducing legislation to 
make these tax credits permanent. If we don't eliminate the sunset 
which was built into the tax bill, then the current maximum credit of 
$10,000 will be reduced back down to $5,000 in 2010. To me, this seems 
like a common-sense change that needs to be made.
  I introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress, and I am hopeful 
that we can get this bill passed before the end of the 108th Congress.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I look forward to working with you on this issue in the 
near future.
  Mr. BUNNING. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the 
importance of promoting interracial adoptions. In the past, many times 
there were barriers to families adopting minority children. This isn't 
fair to the family or the child. That is why in 1996, I pushed for 
legislation stopping discrimination against minority children in order 
to make it easier for them to move from foster care into a loving, 
permanent home.
  All of these initiatives are designed to help find permanent or 
temporary homes for our Nation's children. Today, we are taking another 
important step by reauthorizing the Adoption Incentive Program, and I 
hope that we can get this bill through the Senate and onto the 
President's desk soon.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is also my hope that we can get this bipartisan bill 
through Congress and allow it to become law. I would like to thank you, 
Senator Bunning, and the other members of the Senate who have worked so 
hard on this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Cantwell,  and Mrs. Murray):

[[Page S12198]]

  S. 1687. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
study on the preservation and interpretation of the historic sites of 
the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion in the National Park 
System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Manhattan 
Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes the 
National Park Service, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy 
and Defense, to undertake a special resource study to assess the 
national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating 
various Manhattan Project sites and their facilities as a National 
Historical Park. Specifically, the study will evaluate the historic 
significance of the Manhattan Project facilities of Los Alamos and the 
Trinity Site in the State of New Mexico, of the Hanford Site in the 
State of Washington, and of Oak Ridge in the State of Tennessee. I am 
pleased that my distinguished colleagues from the States of Washington, 
Senators Cantwell and Murray, are cosponsoring this bill.
  The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed 
the World--would be difficult to overstate. The project was initiated 
as a desperate effort in the middle of World War II to beat Nazi 
Germany to the construction of the first nuclear bomb. The effort was 
of a magnitude and intensity not seen before or since: in a mere three 
years, 130,000 men and women went to work on a $2.2 billion mission 
that furiously pushed science, technology, engineering, and society 
into a new age.
  The magnitude of the effort is easily matched by its legacy. This 
legacy includes an ending to the Second World War, as well as the 
foundation for nuclear medicine and great advances in physics, 
mathematics, engineering, and technology. A number of scholars have 
argued that it also includes a dramatic change to a sustained era of 
relative world peace. But this legacy also includes the deaths of 
hundreds of thousands of Japanese, and the sacrifices of the 
homesteaders that were forced off of the sites to make way for the 
project, its thousands of workers and their families, and the uranium 
miners, ``down-winders'', and others. This legacy has been the subject 
of hot debate for decades, and this debate continues today--as it must.
  There are historic facilities at the four Manhattan Project sites 
that are absolutely essential resources for informing this important 
debate, and there should be no question that they are of great national 
and international significance. Pulitzer Prize-winning Manhattan 
Project author Richard Rhodes has said that ``the discovery of how to 
release nuclear energy was arguably the most important human discovery 
since fire--reason enough to preserve its remarkable history.''
  But while the enormous significance of the Manhattan Project makes 
our obligation to preserve and interpret this history abundantly clear, 
it makes it equally challenging. The greatest challenge has been--and 
will continue to be--interpreting this history in a sensitive and 
balanced way. This Nation is blessed with historic assets that praise 
the best of humanity and some that mourn the worst, some that grace us 
with glory and some that humble us with anguish, some that impress us 
with brilliance and some that embarrass us with senselessness, some 
that manifest beginnings and some that mark ends, some that inspire us 
with awe and some that fascinate us with curiosities, and some that 
grip us with the fear of destruction and some that give us the hope of 
creation. But I don't know of any others that challenge us with 
legitimate passions for all of these.
  Preserving and interpreting this history also includes the challenge 
of respecting the ongoing missions and responsibilities of the 
Department of Energy and the Department of Defense at the Manhattan 
Project sites. Access to some of the historic facilities must be 
restricted--to some prohibited--and other precautions also may be 
necessary. The Departments of Energy and Defense have begun to take on 
these challenges, and they deserve much credit for doing so. The 
Bradbury Museum in Los Alamos is a good example, as are the biannual 
tours of the Trinity Site on White Sands Missile Range. They have 
recognized that preserving this history offers great opportunities not 
only for the public, but for their employees. Employees who better 
appreciate this history will be more likely to appreciate their 
careers, and they certainly will appreciate the boost interested 
tourists give to their local economies.
  This bill asks the question whether we will do better to preserve and 
interpret the important history of the Manhattan Project by unifying 
and promoting the various efforts at these sites as a National 
Historical Park. It is appropriate that our Nation's leader in historic 
preservation and interpretation--the National Park Service--lead the 
effort to answer this question. In doing so, they will consult with the 
Secretaries of Energy and Defense, as well as State, tribal, and local 
officials, and representatives of interested organizations and members 
of the public. The Park Service's expertise, experience, and enthusiasm 
is critical to the endeavor.
  In asking this question we are neither celebrating the Manhattan 
Project nor lamenting it. But we are recognizing our responsibility to 
society to ensure it is neither forgotten nor misunderstood.
  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. 1687

       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 ``Manhattan Project National 
     Historical Park Study Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to 
     develop and construct the world's first atomic bomb, 
     represents an extraordinary era of American and world history 
     that--
       (A) included remarkable achievements in science and 
     engineering made possible by innovative partnerships among 
     Federal agencies, universities, and private industries; and
       (B) culminated in a transformation of the global society by 
     ushering in the atomic age;
       (2) the Manhattan Project was an unprecedented 
     $2,200,000,000, 3-year, top-secret effort that employed 
     approximately 130,000 men and women at its peak;
       (3) the Manhattan Project sites contain historic resources 
     that are crucial for the interpretation of the Manhattan 
     Project, including facilities in--
       (A) Oak Ridge, Tennessee (where the first uranium 
     enrichment facilities and pilot-scale nuclear reactor were 
     built);
       (B) Hanford, Washington (where the first large-scale 
     reactor for producing plutonium was built);
       (C) Los Alamos, New Mexico (where the atomic bombs were 
     designed and built); and
       (D) Trinity Site, New Mexico (where the explosion of the 
     first nuclear device took place);
       (4) the Secretary of the Interior has recognized the 
     national significance in American history of Manhattan 
     Project facilities in the study area by--
       (A) designating the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in the 
     State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark in 1965 
     and adding the Laboratory to the National Register of 
     Historic Places in 1966;
       (B) designating the Trinity Site on the White Sands Missile 
     Range in the State of New Mexico as a National Historic 
     Landmark in 1965 and adding the Site to the National Register 
     of Historic Places in 1966;
       (C) designating the X-10 Graphite Reactor at the Oak Ridge 
     National Laboratory in the State of Tennessee as a National 
     Historic Landmark in 1965 and adding the Reactor to the 
     National Register of Historic Places in 1966;
       (D) adding the Oak Ridge Historic District to the National 
     Register of Historic Places in 1991;
       (E) adding the B Reactor at the Hanford Site in the State 
     of Washington to the National Register of Historic Places in 
     1992; and
       (F) by adding the Oak Ridge Turnpike, Bear Creek Road, and 
     Bethel Valley Road Checking Stations in the State of 
     Tennessee to the National Register of Historic Places in 
     1992;
       (5) the Hanford Site has been nominated by the Richland 
     Operations Office of the Department of Energy and the 
     Washington State Historic Preservation Office for addition to 
     the National Register of Historic Places;
       (6) a panel of experts convened by the Advisory Council on 
     Historic Preservation in 2001 reported that the development 
     and use of the atomic bomb during World War II has been 
     called ``the single most significant event of the 20th 
     century'' and recommended that various sites be formally 
     established ``as a collective unit administered for 
     preservation, commemoration, and public interpretation in 
     cooperation with the National Park Service'';

[[Page S12199]]

       (7) the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation reported 
     in 2001 that the preservation and interpretation of the 
     historic sites of the Manhattan Project offer significant 
     value as destinations for domestic and international 
     tourists; and
       (8) preservation and interpretation of the Manhattan 
     Project historic sites are necessary for present and future 
     generations to fully appreciate the extraordinary undertaking 
     and complex consequences of the Manhattan Project.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Study.--The term ``study'' means the study authorized 
     by section 4(a).
       (3) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the 
     following Manhattan Project sites:
       (A) Los Alamos National Laboratory and townsite in the 
     State of New Mexico.
       (B) The Trinity Site on the White Sands Missile Range in 
     the State of New Mexico.
       (C) The Hanford Site in the State of Washington.
       (D) Oak Ridge Laboratory in the State of Tennessee.
       (E) Other significant sites relating to the Manhattan 
     Project determined by the Secretary to be appropriate for 
     inclusion in the study.

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

       (a) Study.-- ---
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a special 
     resource study of the study area to assess the national 
     significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating the 
     various historic sites and structures of the study area as a 
     unit of the National Park System in accordance with section 
     8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).
       (2) Administration.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) consult with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of 
     Defense, State, tribal, and local officials, representatives 
     of interested organizations, and members of the public; and
       (B) evaluate, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the Secretary of Defense, the compatibility of 
     designating the study area, or 1 or more parts of the study 
     area, as a national historical park or national historic site 
     with maintaining security, productivity and management goals 
     of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, 
     and public health and safety.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which 
     funds are made available to carry out the study, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes 
     the findings of the study and any conclusions and 
     recommendations of the Secretary.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor, along with 
my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Murray of the Manhattan Project 
National Historical Park Study Act.
  This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine the 
suitability and feasibility of developing a national park site at one 
or more of the facilities that playing a major role in the Manhattan 
Project--the Federal Government's top-secret effort during World War II 
to develop nuclear weapons before its opponents, an initiative that 
changed the course of world history. I believe it is tremendously 
important for the citizens of our Nation to learn about the important 
functions the various Manhattan Project sites served in defending our 
Nation, from World War II through the cold war, and to recognize and 
understand the complicated and weighty issues arising from the 
production and use of nuclear weapons, their impact on world history as 
well as their human and environmental costs.
  In January of 1943, Hanford, WA was selected by the War Department to 
serve as a part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Manhattan 
Project plan. The site was selected for several reasons: It was 
remotely located from population centers, which fostered security and 
safety; the Columbia River provided plenty of water to cool the 
reactors; and cheap and abundant electricity was available from nearby 
Federal dams.
  The history of this era is a complicated one--as farmers and tribes 
were displaced, given 30 days to move from their homes in central 
Washington. By March 1943, construction had started on the site, which 
covers about 625 square miles. At the time, the priority facility on 
the Hanford Reservation was the B reactor. Built in just 11 months as 
American scientists and their allies engaged in what was then perceived 
as a race with the Germans to develop nuclear capability, B reactor was 
the world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor.
  The need for labor for the project turned Hanford into an atomic 
boomtown, with the population reaching 50,000 by the summer of 1944. 
Workers at the sprawling Hanford complex were not even sure of what 
they were producing, and tales of German rockets used during battles 
led many workers to believe they were producing rocket fuel. In fact, 
this secrecy continued even after the atomic bombs were dropped. One 
worker recalled that many children who lived in the area didn't even 
know what their parent who worked at Hanford did on the job.
  Clearly, the B reactor at Hanford made significant contributions to 
U.S. defense policies during its production run, from 1944 through 
1968. Plutonium from the B reactor was used in the world's first 
nuclear explosion, called the Trinity Test, in New Mexico on July 16, 
1945. B reactor plutonium was also used in the ``Fat Man'' bomb dropped 
on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. The blast devastated more than 
two square miles of the city, effectively ending World War II. The B 
reactor also produced plutonium for the cold war efforts until 1968.
  The B reactor is simply a stunning feat of engineering. Built in less 
than a year, the reactor consisted of a 1,200-ton graphite cylinder 
lying on its side, which was penetrated through its entire length 
horizontally by over 2,000 aluminum tubes. Two hundred tons of uranium 
slugs the size of rolls of quarters went into the tubes. Cooling water 
from the Columbia River, which first had to be treated, was pumped 
through the aluminum tubes at 75,000 gallons per minute. Water 
consumption approached that of a city with a population of 300,000. The 
B reactor was one of three reactors that had its own auxiliary 
facilities that included a river pump house, large storage and settling 
basins, a filtration plant, huge motor-driven pumps for delivering the 
water, and facilities for emergency cooling in case of a power failure. 
It was the first of an eventual nine nuclear reactors that remain on 
the banks of the Columbia River--a potent reminder of both the war 
effort and the environmental burden with which we must contend.
  The people of Washington State, and especially the residents of the 
tri-cities, are proud of their contributions to the World War II and 
cold war efforts. We are left with these irreplaceable relics of the 
Manhattan Project--such as the B reactor--which are incredibly 
important in understanding the engineering achievements that propelled 
this country into the nuclear age, with all of the complicated moral 
issues it poses for the possessors of such technology. As the 
Department of Energy continues its work to clean up the Hanford site, 
the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation, it is important 
that we also honor the achievements of the important work done here, as 
well as commemorate the tremendous sacrifices made by workers, 
displaced families and tribes, and this era's environmental legacy.
  There is already strong support in the communities that surround 
Hanford for preserving the history of the Manhattan Project, and I 
would like to commend the B reactor Museum Association and Bechtel 
Hanford, Inc. for all this work to date. In recent years, they have 
worked hard to decontaminate, clean, inventory, and spruce up B 
reactor's interior so that people can walk in to see three chambers. 
But more work needs to be done if we want to preserve the reactor for 
future generations, which must learn about the Manhattan Project and 
its impact on world history.
  One such way to do that is to look into the possibility of adding the 
B reactor as well as Manhattan Project sites in other parts of the 
country as a new National Park unit.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of 
this bill, as the study it authorizes is a much-needed first step in 
determining the best options for preserving this important piece of 
American history.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1688. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the exclusion for extraterritorial income and provide for a deduction 
relating to income attributable to United States production activities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S12200]]

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to draw your attention 
to a few very troubling statistics. Manufacturing employment in the 
United States has now fallen to its lowest level in 41 years. In the 
last five years, we have lost 16 percent of all our factory jobs. In 
the last 2 years alone we have lost approximately 2.5 million 
manufacturing jobs.
  These are frightening statistics. They ought to jolt every Member of 
the Senate and prompt an urgent call for action. A vibrant 
manufacturing base is essential to our standard of living. For 
generations, factory jobs have been the path to the middle class, 
providing good wages, health insurance, and pension benefits. Advances 
in manufacturing technology accounts for most of our economy's 
increased productivity. And every dollar spent on finished manufactured 
goods is estimated to produce $2.43 of economic activity. Simply put, 
we cannot become a service-only economy and expect to maintain our high 
standard of living. We ought to act swiftly to ensure that Americans 
still produce steel and computers and cars and pharmaceuticals.
  We ought not be timid in the face of the devastating statistics I 
cited. Piecemeal efforts will not revitalize our industrial base. 
Therefore, today I am introducing the Securing America's Factory 
Employment (SAFE) Act. This bill will offer relief to American 
manufacturers on several fronts. First, my legislation would provide a 
tax deduction to any company that offers manufacturing jobs in the 
United States. Second, this bill helps companies cover the cost of 
providing health care for retirees, a crippling obligation for many of 
our once proud industries. And third, I propose that we strengthen our 
trade laws to ensure that they offer the protections that our domestic 
industries deserve from unfair and illegal trade practices.
  Let me take a moment to explain in greater detail how these proposals 
can help our domestic manufacturing base. This Congress is compelled to 
repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income provisions 
of the U.S. Tax Code in order to avoid $4 billion in trade sanctions 
authorized by the World Trade Organization. Regardless of my opinion of 
the WTO's decision in this matter, I recognize that it may be that to 
protect our economy from a trade war we must update our Tax Code. We 
can do so and still encourage manufacturing by reducing the overall 
effective corporate income tax rate on domestic manufacturing.
  The SAFE Act provides a 9-percent deduction for profits derived from 
manufacturing activities in the United States; this is the equivalent 
of lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 32 percent 
for the portion of profits that can be directly linked to U.S. 
factories, mining operations, and the like. This straightforward tax 
break will lower the cost of doing business in the United States and 
will help companies that employ Americans compete in the global 
marketplace.
  In addition, this bill includes a tax credit to employers to 
encourage them to retain their retiree health insurance coverage. As 
you know, employers and other health plan sponsors continue to 
restructure how they provide health care benefits for both workers and 
retirees. The percent of employers offering retiree health benefits has 
declined substantially over the past 15 years. Two-thirds of all firms 
with 200 or more workers sponsored retiree coverage 15 years ago. 
According to the most recent data, only 38 percent of such employers 
provide retiree benefits today. Despite these reductions, the employer-
sponsored health care system is the largest source of health care 
coverage in this country today. The SAFE Act would provide employers 
with a tax credit to cover 75 percent of the costs associated with 
providing health care coverage to their retirees in order to protect 
existing coverage and reverse the current trend.
  Finally, my legislation would strengthen our trade protections. Our 
antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) trade law are often the 
first and last time of defense for U.S. industries injured by unfairly 
or illegally traded imports. These laws are absolutely essential to the 
survival of our manufacturing sector in an increasingly global market--
but some of their provisions have become antiquated by recent changes 
in our global economy and the new structure of international trade. The 
Americans steel crisis has made it clear that these trade laws need to 
be strengthened. Companies, workers, families and communities rely 
heavily on these laws to prevent the ill-effects of unfair trade. Our 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws need to be updated and amended 
so they work as intended, and as permitted, under the rules of 
international trade.
  For example, the SAFE Act includes a provision that allows us to 
consider whether or not an industry is vulnerable to the effects of 
imports in making antidumping and countervailing duty determinations. 
Another provision in this bill will make it tougher for our trading 
partners to circumvent antidumping or countervailing duty orders by 
clarifying that AD/CVD orders include products that have been changed 
in only very minor respects. This will help prevent foreign nations 
from making slight alterations to products that they are exporting to 
us to in order to skirt existing AD/CVD orders.
  Another clear problem under our current trade laws is that foreign 
producers and exporters of subject merchandise may avoid AD/CVD duties 
by using complex schemes that mask payment of countervailing duties 
resulting in the understatement of duty rates. My legislation would 
restrict such practices by requiring the importer, if affiliated with 
the foreign producers or exporters, to demonstrate that the importer 
was in no way reimbursed for any AD/CVD duties paid. There are 
certainly other changes we should consider to update our trade remedy 
laws. These provisions are by no means an exhaustive list of needed 
reforms. But we do need to get the debate started, and I offer this 
bill as a way to re-energize the debate.
  The SAFE Act addresses several of the most dire needs of our 
manufacturing companies. It improves our trade laws, helps with the 
burden of retiree health care costs, and effectively lowers the 
corporate tax rate on manufacturing activities. This package of reforms 
is an effective plan to stem the flow of good manufacturing jobs 
overseas. If we are serious about revitalizing our economy and 
maintaining our standard of living, we must act quickly to shore up our 
manufacturing base. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this 
effort.
  I ask that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1688

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Securing 
     American Factory Employment (SAFE) Act''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

        TITLE I--PROVISIONS RELATING TO REPEAL OF EXCLUSION FOR 
                        EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME

     SEC. 101. REPEAL OF EXCLUSION FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Section 114 is hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1)(A) Subpart E of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 
     (relating to qualifying foreign trade income) is hereby 
     repealed.
       (B) The table of subparts for such part III is amended by 
     striking the item relating to subpart E.
       (2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     114.
       (3) The second sentence of section 56(g)(4)(B)(i) is 
     amended by striking ``or under section 114''.
       (4) Section 275(a) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4)(A), by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4)(B) and inserting 
     a period, and by striking subparagraph (C), and
       (B) by striking the last sentence.
       (5) Paragraph (3) of section 864(e) is amended--
       (A) by striking:
       ``(3) Tax-exempt assets not taken into account.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of''; and inserting:
       ``(3) Tax-exempt assets not taken into account.--For 
     purposes of'', and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B).

[[Page S12201]]

       (6) Section 903 is amended by striking ``114, 164(a),'' and 
     inserting ``164(a)''.
       (7) Section 999(c)(1) is amended by striking 
     ``941(a)(5),''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to transactions occurring after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Binding contracts.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any transaction in the ordinary course of 
     a trade or business which occurs pursuant to a binding 
     contract--
       (A) which is between the taxpayer and a person who is not a 
     related person (as defined in section 943(b)(3) of such Code, 
     as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act), and
       (B) which is in effect on September 17, 2003, and at all 
     times thereafter.
       (d) Revocation of Section 943(e) Elections.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a corporation that elected 
     to be treated as a domestic corporation under section 943(e) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act)--
       (A) the corporation may, during the 1-year period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act, revoke such 
     election, effective as of such date of enactment, and
       (B) if the corporation does revoke such election--
       (i) such corporation shall be treated as a domestic 
     corporation transferring (as of such date of enactment) all 
     of its property to a foreign corporation in connection with 
     an exchange described in section 354 of such Code, and
       (ii) no gain or loss shall be recognized on such transfer.
       (2) Exception.--Subparagraph (B)(ii) of paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to gain on any asset held by the revoking 
     corporation if--
       (A) the basis of such asset is determined in whole or in 
     part by reference to the basis of such asset in the hands of 
     the person from whom the revoking corporation acquired such 
     asset,
       (B) the asset was acquired by transfer (not as a result of 
     the election under section 943(e) of such Code) occurring on 
     or after the 1st day on which its election under section 
     943(e) of such Code was effective, and
       (C) a principal purpose of the acquisition was the 
     reduction or avoidance of tax (other than a reduction in tax 
     under section 114 of such Code, as in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act).
       (e) General Transition.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a taxable year ending after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and beginning before 
     January 1, 2007, for purposes of chapter 1 of such Code, a 
     current FSC/ETI beneficiary shall be allowed a deduction 
     equal to the transition amount determined under this 
     subsection with respect to such beneficiary for such year.
       (2) Current fsc/eti beneficiary.--The term ``current FSC/
     ETI beneficiary'' means any corporation which entered into 
     one or more transactions during its taxable year beginning in 
     calendar year 2002 with respect to which FSC/ETI benefits 
     were allowable.
       (3) Transition amount.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) In general.--The transition amount applicable to any 
     current FSC/ETI beneficiary for any taxable year is the 
     phaseout percentage of the base period amount.
       (B) Phaseout percentage.--
       (i) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer using the 
     calendar year as its taxable year, the phaseout percentage 
     shall be determined under the following table:

                                                           The phaseout
Years:                                                   percentage is:
2004................................................................80 
2005................................................................80 
2006................................................................60.

       (ii) Special rule for 2003.--The phaseout percentage for 
     2003 shall be the amount that bears the same ratio to 100 
     percent as the number of days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act bears to 365.

       (iii) Special rule for fiscal year taxpayers.--In the case 
     of a taxpayer not using the calendar year as its taxable 
     year, the phaseout percentage is the weighted average of the 
     phaseout percentages determined under the preceding 
     provisions of this paragraph with respect to calendar years 
     any portion of which is included in the taxpayer's taxable 
     year. The weighted average shall be determined on the basis 
     of the respective portions of the taxable year in each 
     calendar year.

       (4) Base period amount.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the base period amount is the aggregate FSC/ETI benefits for 
     the taxpayer's taxable year beginning in calendar year 2002.

       (5) FSC/ETI benefit.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term ``FSC/ETI benefit'' means--

       (A) amounts excludable from gross income under section 114 
     of such Code, and
       (B) the exempt foreign trade income of related foreign 
     sales corporations from property acquired from the taxpayer 
     (determined without regard to section 923(a)(5) of such Code 
     (relating to special rule for military property), as in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the FSC 
     Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000).

     In determining the FSC/ETI benefit there shall be excluded 
     any amount attributable to a transaction with respect to 
     which the taxpayer is the lessor unless the leased property 
     was manufactured or produced in whole or in part by the 
     taxpayer.
       (6) Special rule for farm cooperatives.--Determinations 
     under this subsection with respect to an organization 
     described in section 943(g)(1) of such Code, as in effect on 
     the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall 
     be made at the cooperative level and the purposes of this 
     subsection shall be carried out in a manner similar to 
     section 250(h) of such Code, as added by this Act. Such 
     determinations shall be in accordance with such requirements 
     and procedures as the Secretary may prescribe.
       (7) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     section 41(f) of such Code shall apply for purposes of this 
     subsection.
       (8) Coordination with binding contract rule.--The deduction 
     determined under paragraph (1) for any taxable year shall be 
     reduced by the phaseout percentage of any FSC/ETI benefit 
     realized for the taxable year by reason of subsection (c)(2), 
     except that for purposes of this paragraph the phaseout 
     percentage for 2003 shall be treated as being equal to 100 
     percent.
       (9) Special rule for taxable year which includes date of 
     enactment.--In the case of a taxable year which includes the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the deduction allowed 
     under this subsection to any current FSC/ETI beneficiary 
     shall in no event exceed--
       (A) 100 percent of such beneficiary's base period amount 
     for calendar year 2003, reduced by
       (B) the aggregate FSC/ETI benefits of such beneficiary with 
     respect to transactions occurring during the portion of the 
     taxable year ending on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. DEDUCTION RELATING TO INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNITED 
                   STATES PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 
     (relating to itemized deductions for individuals and 
     corporations) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 199. INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--There shall be allowed as a deduction an 
     amount equal to 9 percent of the qualified production 
     activities income of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
       ``(b) Phasein.--In the case of taxable years beginning in 
     2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008, subsection (a) shall be 
     applied by substituting for the `9 percent' the transition 
     percentage determined under the following table:

``Taxable years                                          The transition
beginning in:                                            percentage is:

2004................................................................ 1 
2005................................................................ 2 
2006................................................................ 3 
2007 or 2008........................................................ 6.

       ``(c) Qualified Production Activities Income.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `qualified production activities 
     income' means an amount equal to the portion of the modified 
     taxable income of the taxpayer which is attributable to 
     domestic production activities.
       ``(d) Determination of Income Attributable to Domestic 
     Production Activities.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The portion of the modified taxable 
     income which is attributable to domestic production 
     activities is so much of the modified taxable income for the 
     taxable year as does not exceed--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's domestic production gross receipts for 
     such taxable year, reduced by
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the costs of goods sold that are allocable to such 
     receipts,
       ``(ii) other deductions, expenses, or losses directly 
     allocable to such receipts, and
       ``(iii) a proper share of other deductions, expenses, and 
     losses that are not directly allocable to such receipts or 
     another class of income.
       ``(2) Allocation method.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     rules for the proper allocation of items of income, 
     deduction, expense, and loss for purposes of determining 
     income attributable to domestic production activities.
       ``(3) Special rules for determining costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of determining costs under 
     clause (i) of paragraph (1)(B), any item or service brought 
     into the United States without a transfer price meeting the 
     requirements of section 482 shall be treated as acquired by 
     purchase, and its cost shall be treated as not less than its 
     value when it entered the United States. A similar rule shall 
     apply in determining the adjusted basis of leased or rented 
     property where the lease or rental gives rise to domestic 
     production gross receipts.
       ``(B) Exports for further manufacture.--In the case of any 
     property described in subparagraph (A) that had been exported 
     by the taxpayer for further manufacture, the increase in cost 
     or adjusted basis under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the 
     difference between the value of the property when exported 
     and the value of the property when brought back into the 
     United States after the further manufacture.
       ``(4) Modified taxable income.--The term `modified taxable 
     income' means taxable income computed without regard to the 
     deduction allowable under this section.
       ``(e) Domestic Production Gross Receipts.--For purposes of 
     this section, the

[[Page S12202]]

     term `domestic production gross receipts' means the gross 
     receipts of the taxpayer which are derived from--
       ``(1) any sale, exchange, or other disposition of, or
       ``(2) any lease, rental, or license of,

     qualifying production property which was manufactured, 
     produced, grown, or extracted in whole or in significant part 
     by the taxpayer within the United States.
       ``(f) Qualifying Production Property.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     paragraph, the term `qualifying production property' means--
       ``(A) any tangible personal property,
       ``(B) any computer software, and
       ``(C) any property described in section 168(f) (3) or (4).
       ``(2) Exclusions from qualifying production property.--The 
     term `qualifying production property' shall not include--
       ``(A) consumable property that is sold, leased, or licensed 
     by the taxpayer as an integral part of the provision of 
     services,
       ``(B) electricity,
       ``(C) water supplied by pipeline to the consumer,
       ``(D) utility services, or
       ``(E) any property (not described in paragraph (1)(B)) 
     which is a film, tape, recording, book, magazine, newspaper, 
     or similar property the market for which is primarily topical 
     or otherwise essentially transitory in nature.
       ``(g) Definitions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Treatment of pass-thru entities.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe rules for the proper application of this section in 
     the case of pass-thru entities other than cooperatives to 
     which paragraph (2) applies and subchapter S corporations.
       ``(2) Exclusion for patrons of cooperatives.--
       ``(A) In general.--If any amount described in paragraph (1) 
     or (3) of section 1385 (a)--
       ``(i) is received by a person from an organization to which 
     part I of subchapter T applies, and
       ``(ii) is allocable to the portion of the qualified 
     production activities income of the organization which is 
     deductible under subsection (a) and designated as such by the 
     organization in a written notice mailed to its patrons during 
     the payment period described in section 1382(a),

     then such person shall be allowed an exclusion from gross 
     income with respect to such amount. The taxable income of the 
     organization shall not be reduced under section 1382 by the 
     portion of any such amount with respect to which an exclusion 
     is allowable to a person by reason of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Special rules.--For purposes of applying subparagraph 
     (A), in determining the qualified production activities 
     income of the organization under this section--
       ``(i) there shall not be taken into account in computing 
     the organization's modified taxable income any deduction 
     allowable under subsection (b) or (c) of section 1382 
     (relating to patronage dividends, per-unit retain 
     allocations, and nonpatronage distributions), and
       ``(ii) the organization shall be treated as having 
     manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted in whole or 
     significant part any qualifying production property marketed 
     by the organization which its patrons have so manufactured, 
     produced, grown, or extracted.
       ``(3) Coordination with minimum tax.--The deduction under 
     this section shall be allowed for purposes of the tax imposed 
     by section 55; except that for purposes of section 55, 
     alternative minimum taxable income shall be taken into 
     account in determining the deduction under this section.
       ``(4) Ordering rule.--The amount of any other deduction 
     allowable under this chapter shall be determined as if this 
     section had not been enacted.
       ``(5) Coordination with transition rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(A) domestic production gross receipts shall not include 
     gross receipts from any transaction if the binding contract 
     transition relief of section 101(c)(2) of the Securing 
     American Factory Employment (SAFE) Act applies to such 
     transaction, and
       ``(B) any deduction allowed under section 101(e) of such 
     Act shall be disregarded in determining the portion of the 
     taxable income which is attributable to domestic production 
     gross receipts.''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed to Shareholders of S Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1363(b) (relating to computation 
     of S corporation's taxable income) is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the deduction under section 199 shall be allowed to 
     the S corporation.''
       (2) Increase in basis.--Section 1367(a)(1) (relating to 
     increases in basis) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) any deduction allowed under section 199.''
       (c) Minimum Tax.--Section 56(g)(4)(C) (relating to 
     disallowance of items not deductible in computing earnings 
     and profits) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(v) Deduction for domestic production.--Clause (i) shall 
     not apply to any amount allowable as a deduction under 
     section 199.''
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 199. Income attributable to domestic production activities.''

       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Application of section 15.--Section 15 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply to the amendments made by 
     this section as if they were changes in a rate of tax.

  TITLE II--EMPLOYER-PROVIDED RETIRED EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE TAX CREDIT

     SEC. 201. TAX CREDIT FOR 75 PERCENT OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED 
                   RETIRED EMPLOYEE HEALTH PREMIUMS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 45G. RETIRED EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, in the 
     case of a qualified employer, the retired employee health 
     insurance expenses credit determined under this section is an 
     amount equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year for qualified retired employee health 
     insurance expenses.
       ``(b) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Qualified employer.--The term `qualified employer' 
     means any employer which is eligible for the deduction 
     allowable under section 199 for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Qualified retired employee health insurance 
     expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified retired employee 
     health insurance expenses' means any amount paid by an 
     employer for health insurance coverage to the extent such 
     amount is attributable to coverage provided to any retired 
     employee and such retired employee's spouse and dependents.
       ``(B) Exception for amounts paid under salary reduction 
     arrangements.--No amount paid or incurred for health 
     insurance coverage pursuant to a salary reduction arrangement 
     shall be taken into account under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Health insurance coverage.--The term `health 
     insurance coverage' has the meaning given such term by 
     paragraph (1) of section 9832(b) (determined by disregarding 
     the last sentence of paragraph (2) of such section).
       ``(3) Retired employee--The term `retired employee' means 
     an individual who has met any years of service or disability 
     requirements under an employee benefit plan of the employer.
       ``(c) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 52 shall 
     apply.
       ``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit 
     under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed 
     with respect to qualified retired employee health insurance 
     expenses taken into account under subsection (a).
       ``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
       (b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--Section 
     38(b) (relating to current year business credit) is amended 
     by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (14), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (15) and 
     inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) the retired employee health insurance expenses 
     credit determined under section 45G.''.
       (c) No Carrybacks.--Subsection (d) of section 39 (relating 
     to carryback and carryforward of unused credits) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) No carryback of section 45g credit before effective 
     date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any 
     taxable year which is attributable to the retired employee 
     health insurance expenses credit determined under section 45G 
     may be carried back to a taxable year ending before the date 
     of the enactment of section 45G.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 45G. Retired employee health insurance expenses.''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2003.

      TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930

     SEC. 301. CAPTIVE PRODUCTION.

       Section 771(7)(C)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(7)(C)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iv) Captive production.--If domestic producers transfer 
     internally, including to affiliated persons as defined in 
     paragraph (33), significant production of the domestic like 
     product for the production of a downstream article and sell 
     significant production of the domestic like product in the 
     merchant market, then the Commission, in determining market 
     share and the factors affecting financial performance set 
     forth in

[[Page S12203]]

     clause (iii), shall focus primarily on the merchant market 
     for the domestic like product.''.

     SEC. 302. PRICE.

       Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(7)(C)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     flush sentence:
  ``Imports of the subject merchandise may have a significant effect on 
prices irrespective of whether the magnitude of, or change in the 
volume of, imports of the subject merchandise is significant.''.

     SEC. 303. VULNERABILITY OF INDUSTRY.

       Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(7)(C)(iii)) is amended in the last sentence by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting ``, including whether the 
     industry is vulnerable to the effects of imports of the 
     subject merchandise.''.

     SEC. 304. CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPORTS AND INJURY.

       Section 771(7)(E)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(7)(E)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Commission need not determine the 
     significance of imports of the subject merchandise relative 
     to other economic factors.''.

     SEC. 305. PREVENTION OF CIRCUMVENTION.

       Section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677j(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule.--The administering authority shall 
     apply paragraph (1) with respect to altered merchandise 
     excluded from, or not specifically included in, the 
     merchandise description used in an outstanding order or 
     finding, if such application is not inconsistent with the 
     affirmative determination of the Commission on which the 
     order or finding is based.''.

     SEC. 306. FULL RECOGNITION OF SUBSIDY CONFERRED THROUGH 
                   PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES AND PURCHASE OF 
                   GOODS.

       Section 771(5)(E) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(5)(E)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``If transactions in the country which is the subject of the 
     investigation or review do not reflect market conditions due 
     to government action associated with provision of the good or 
     service or purchase of the goods, determination of the 
     adequacy of remuneration shall be through comparison with the 
     most comparable market price elsewhere in the world.''.

     SEC. 307. PROHIBITION ON MASKING REIMBURSEMENT OF DUTIES.

       Section 772(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677a(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) if the importer is the producer or exporter, or the 
     importer and the producer or exporter are affiliated persons, 
     an amount equal to the dumping margin calculated under 
     section 771(35)(A), unless the producer or exporter is able 
     to demonstrate that the importer was in no way reimbursed for 
     any antidumping duties paid; and
       ``(5) if the importer is the producer or exporter, or the 
     importer and the producer or exporter are affiliated persons, 
     an amount equal to the net countervailable subsidy calculated 
     under section 771(6), unless the producer or exporter is able 
     to demonstrate that the importer was in no way reimbursed for 
     any countervailing duties paid.''.

     SEC. 308. EXPORT PRICE AND CONSTRUCTED EXPORT PRICE.

       Section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677a(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ``(including 
     countervailing duties imposed under this title)'' after 
     ``duties''.

     SEC. 309. APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.

       Pursuant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act, the amendments made by this 
     title shall apply with respect to goods from Canada and 
     Mexico.

     SEC. 310. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply with respect 
     to determinations made under title VII of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 that--
       (1) are made with respect to investigations initiated or 
     petitions filed after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) have not become final as of such date of enactment.

                          ____________________