[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.
____________________