Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15062-S15080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 1876. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain lands and facilities of the Provo River Project; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
authorizing the title transfer of certain features of the Provo River
Project, UT, from the Bureau of Reclamation to non-Federal ownership.
This title transfer will provide many benefits, both directly and
indirectly, for both the local government and the Federal Government,
including economic, environmental, recreational, and safety benefits.
The facilities to be transferred are the Provo Reservoir Canal and
associated lands and structures, the Salt Lake Aqueduct and associated
lands and structures, and a 3.79 acre parcel of land in Pleasant Grove,
UT. The Provo Reservoir Canal is a large, open, mostly unlined, 21.5
mile long canal that was constructed by the United States in the 1940s.
The water transported through the Provo Reservoir Canal is used
principally for municipal and industrial purposes. The Salt Lake
Aqueduct is a 41.7 mile long, 69 inch diameter pipe, constructed by the
United States and completed in 1951. The Provo River Water Users
Association recently constructed a $2 million office and shop complex
on the Pleasant Grove property, without the use of Federal funds.
Title transfer will facilitate the use of tax-exempt bond financing
and low-interest loan financing for needed improvements. Currently,
there is no Reclamation program for rehabilitating aging Reclamation
facilities. Federal ownership of the facilities to be improved prevents
low interest loans by others. On the Federal level, the transfer would
eliminate the demands on limited Reclamation resources for the
administration of the Salt Lake Aqueduct and the Provo Reservoir Canal.
It is anticipated that following title transfer, needed improvements
would be made. For example, the Provo Reservoir Canal will be enclosed
to provide for the conservation of water, improved water quality and
security, the construction of a public trail system on top of the
canal, and to eliminate the hazards of an open unlined canal in an
urban environment. The critical importance of eliminating the safety
hazard of an open canal in an urban setting was recently reinforced by
the tragic death of two young men who unfortunately were lured by the
thrill of attempting a swim through the canal to the other end. The
enclosure of the canal would eliminate this safety risk and hopefully
prevent any others from making a similar mistake.
The transfer has significant local support, including Utah County,
Salt Lake County, Sandy City, Salt Lake City, Lindon City, Draper,
Pleasant Grove City, Orem City and American Fork City.
I look forward to working with the Metropolitan Water District of
Salt Lake and Sandy, the Provo River Water Users Association, and all
interested parties to make this title transfer a success.
______

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 1879. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and
extend provisions relating to mammography quality standards; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mammography
Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to be
joined in introducing this bill by Senator Ensign and

[[Page S15063]]

our bipartisan cosponsors. This important bipartisan bill is about
saving lives. That's what the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA)
does. Accurate mammograms detect breast cancer early, so women can get
treatment and be survivors.
Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have
now. I authored MQSA over ten years ago to improve the quality of
mammograms so that they are safe and accurate. Before MQSA became law,
there was an uneven and conflicting patchwork of standards for
mammography in this country. There were no national quality standards
for personnel or equipment. Image quality of mammograms and patient
exposure to radiation levels varied widely. The quality of mammography
equipment was poor. Physicians and technologists were poorly trained.
Inspections were lacking.
MQSA set federal safety and quality assurance standards for
mammography facilities for: personnel, including doctors who interpret
mammograms; equipment; and operating procedures. By creating national
standards, Congress helped make mammograms a more reliable tool for
detecting breast cancer. In 1998, Congress improved MQSA by giving
information on test results directly to the women being tested, so no
woman falls through the cracks because she never learns about a
suspicious finding on her mammogram. Now it is time to renew MQSA and
lay the foundation to strengthen it even further.
The bill that I am introducing with Senator Ensign today is a
bipartisan agreement to extent MQSA for two years while making two
additional changes to certificates that facilities are required to have
to perform mammograms. First, the bill allows the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to issue a temporary renewal certificate for up to
45 days to a facility seeking reaccreditation, if the accreditation
body has issued an accreditation extension and other criteria are met.
This will help ensure that a facility is not forced to close its doors
to women seeking mammograms, while it is completing its reaccreditation
and the quality of mammography is not compromised.

Second, the bill allows the Secretary, at the request of an
accreditation body, to issue a limited provisional certificate to a
facility to enable a facility to conduct examinations for educational
purposes while an onsite visit from an accreditation body is in
progress. This certificate would only be valid during the time the site
visit team from the accreditation body is physically in the facility
and would not be valid longer than 72 hours.
The two year reauthorization of MQSA is important. It will give
Congress an opportunity to consider in the next reauthorization expert
recommendations from an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study and a General
Accounting Office (GAO) report on several issues related to MQSA. I
have been working with the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and
Education Appropriations Subcommittee to get these studies going since
I included them in the Senate fiscal year 2004 Labor/HHS Appropriations
bill. The HELP Committee also heard testimony in support of a two year
reauthorization at the HELP Committee's April hearing on MQSA.
As I talked to advocacy groups about ways to improve MQSA, the need
to improve the skills of doctors reading mammograms was brought to my
attention. One study found that a woman has a 50 percent chance of
getting a ``false positive'' reading from her mammogram over 10 years.
I'm gravely concerned about reports that doctors miss about 15 percent
of breast cancers on mammograms. I was also disturbed by a New York
Times investigation last year. It found that some radiologists were
missing alarming numbers of breast cancers because they lacked the
experience or training they needed for the difficult task of
interpreting the X-ray. These are reasons why I requested the hearing
that the HELP Committee held in April on this issue. While I am
disappointed that the HELP Committee was not able to reach agreement
this year on a continuing medical education provision to address this
issue, I look forward to Congress reexamining this issue once the IOM
and GAO studies are completed.
The IOM and GAO will look at several important issues such as: ways
to improve physicians' interpretation of mammograms; possible changes
to MQSA regulatory requirements; ways to ensure the recruitment and
retention of sufficient numbers of adequately trained personnel to
provide quality mammography; how data currently collected under MQSA
could be better used; and factors that led to the closing of
mammography facilities since 2001. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in Congress to examine the recommendations from these
studies in 2005 and to consider further improvements to MQSA in its
next reauthorization.
The HELP Committee will mark up this bill tomorrow. This legislation
is supported by groups including the American Cancer Society, the Susan
G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the national Alliance of Breast
Cancer Organizations, and the American College of Radiology
Association. I strongly urge Committee passage and swift Senate passage
of the bill later this week. I hope that the House will also
expeditiously pass this bill. There are an estimated 212,600 new cases
of breast cancer and an estimated 40,200 breast cancer deaths in the
United States this year. Early detection and treatment are essential to
reducing breast cancer deaths. Congress should pass this bill this year
to reauthorize MQSA and extend this valuable program that helps save
the lives of women and men with breast cancer. I ask unanimous consent
that letters of support be printed in the Record.

American Cancer Society,

November 18, 2003.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the American Cancer
Society and its more than 28 million supporters, I would like
to thank you, along with Senator Ensign, for your continued
leadership in sponsoring the ``Mammography Quality Standards
Act of 2003.'' As the largest national, community-based
organization dedicated to eliminating the incidence and
burden of cancer and improving cancer care, the Society
strongly supports the reauthorization of the Mammography
Quality standards Act of 1992 (MQSA) in the remaining days of
this session.
In addition, we believe a two year reauthorization is
appropriate at this time, as we continue to examine methods
for mammography quality improvement. Currently, funding has
been included in the LHHS Appropriation bill for the
Institute of Medicine and General Accounting Office to study
and recommend concrete improvement to MQSA. When the results
of these studies are released, we look forward to again
working with the Congress to further improve MQSA and ensure
that women's access to high quality mammography continues.
The American Cancer Society, along with other professional
societies and advocacy groups, was actively involved in the
development of the 1992 MQSA law and its reauthorization in
1997, in an effort to further reduce deaths and disability
from breast cancer. Mammography screening has led to earlier
detection of breast cancer when it is in its most treatable
stages, thereby providing a greater chance for life-saving
treatments and a greater range of treatment options.
Increasing utilization of mammography has been a major factor
in the reduction of breast cancer deaths in the U.S. over the
last decade. Based upon ongoing scientific evidence and
improvements in technology, high-quality mammography
continues to be the best available tool for the early
detection of breast cancer. Therefore, the Society is honored
to again lend our support to Congress in its commitment to
ensure that women have access to high-quality mammograms.
The Society would like to commend you again for your
leadership on this critical public health issue, and we look
forward to continuing to work closely with you and the other
cosponsors to ensure the enactment of this important
legislation this year. If you or your staff have any
questions, please contact Kelly Green Kahn, Manager of
Federal Government Relations (202-661-5718).
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Smith,
National Vice President, Federal & State Government
Relations.
Wendy K.D. Selig,
Vice President, Legislative Affairs.
____

The Susan G. Komen Breast

Cancer Foundation,

November 17, 2003.
Re: Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003

Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation supports your introduction of the Mammography
Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003, and we
appreciate your leadership in ensuring patient access to
quality breast health and breast cancer care.

[[Page S15064]]

Thanks to more than 75,000 volunteers dedicated to the
fight against breast cancer, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation is a unique grassroots network with more than 100
Affiliates nationwide and internationally. Since its
inception in 1982, Komen has raised nearly $600 million in
furtherance of its mission--to eradicate breast cancer as a
life-threatening disease by advancing research, education,
screening and treatment. Komen dedicates millions of dollars
annually towards scientific and community outreach projects.
The Komen Foundation Research Program has awarded more than
850 grants, totaling more than $110 million for breast cancer
research. In addition, Komen Affiliates have funded hundreds
of non-duplicative, community-based breast health education
and breast cancer screening and treatment projects for the
medically underserved.
Early detection of breast cancer saves lives. Mammography
screening remains the gold standard in the early detection of
breast cancer. In the past decade, breast cancer mortality
rates have declined in the United States. This is due, in
large measure, to early detection and timely treatment. The
MQSA establishes a national standard of mammography care.
Since enactment of the MQSA, women throughout the country
have gained further confidence in their mammograms, as well
as in those individuals and facilities that provide services
as part of screening for breast cancer.
The Komen Foundation wishes to lend our continued support
to the efforts of you and your colleagues to ensure enactment
of the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act, and
we applaud your efforts in advancing an issue of utmost
importance.
Very truly yours,
Susan Braun,
President and CEO.
____

NABCO , National Alliance of Breast Cancer
Organizations,
New York, NY, November 18, 2003.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the millions of women,
families, professionals and providers served by the education
and information programs of the National Alliance of Breast
Cancer Organizations (NABCO), I am writing to express support
of 2003 legislation to reauthorize the Mammography Quality
Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA). We thank you and your Senate
co-sponsors for advancing this legislation.
Since our organization's founding in 1986, NABCO has been a
visible proponent of high-quality early detection of breast
cancer. We have worked with Congressional leaders on measures
to educate women about good breast health, and on provisions
to improve screening coverage and reimbursement, and to
eliminate barriers to early diagnosis. Without question,
early detection followed by prompt, state-of-the-art care
offers women the best chance for successful treatment, and
high-quality, regular mammograms are the best available tool
to detect breast cancer at its earliest, treatable stages.
The MQSA system of certification, inspection and
accreditation established basic standards that have improved
the quality of mammography in the United States. After
working with Congress to craft this legislation, it was my
honor to serve as a consumer representative on the FDA's
initial MQSA Advisory Committee. Since 1992, breast cancer
survival has improved markedly--in large part because more
women have taken advantage of regular, high-quality screening
mammograms, available nationwide. The current reauthorization
provisions will further strengthen this system.
However, new approaches are needed to continue to improve
the quality and efficiency of this test, reflect technology
innovations, disseminate outcomes, and attract dedicated
professionals to the breast imaging field. We hope that you
will seek NABCO's ongoing help to identify ways that MQSA can
better serve facilities, medical professionals and consumers.
We commend you and your staff for your recognition that high
quality, accessible mammography is vital to making progress
in the fight against breast cancer. With your support, we can
offer women confidence that if they have breast cancer, it is
likely to be detected, and that mammography and imaging
services in the U.S. will continue to improve in quality.
Very truly yours,
Amy S. Langer,
Executive Director.
____

American College of Radiology,

Reston, VA, November 17, 2003.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the 30,000 physician
and physicist members of the American College of Radiology
Association (ACRa), I would like to offer the College's full
support for your introduction of legislation to reauthorize
the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA).
Since enactment of MQSA in 1992, women in the United States
have gained confidence in the providers of their mammograms,
through the knowledge that mammography facilities were being
certified in accordance with federal standards. The
successful collaboration of radiologists, mammography
facility operators, federal and state regulators and consumer
groups has produced significant improvements in the quality
of mammograms nationwide. With the impending passage of this
legislation, Congress and ACRa continue this legacy.
The technical corrections contained in this legislation
will make sure that mammography facilities will not be closed
due to administrative ``Catch 22's.'' Had these problems not
been addressed, access by thousands of women seeking timely
breast cancer detection and treatment may have been
threatened. Furthermore, the Committee's willingness to work
with the breast cancer community and consider incorporating
the results of pending studies into the next reauthorization
is truly appreciated and has the potential of improving the
act even more.
The College looks forward to working with you and other
interested parties to enact this legislation and thanks you
for your leadership as we continue to improve the quality of
mammography services throughout the country.
Sincerely,
E. Stephen Amis,
Chairman, Board of Chancellors.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my
distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, the
Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003. The purpose
of this legislation is to reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards
Act in order to maintain access to high quality mammography services
for every woman in America.
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among
American women. An estimated 211,300 new cases of invasive breast
cancer are expected to occur among women in the United States in 2003.
In my home State of Nevada alone, 1,400 new cases of breast cancer will
be diagnosed in women, and an estimated 300 women in Nevada will die of
breast cancer next year.
The MQSA was originally passed in 1992 to ensure that all women have
access to quality mammography for the detection of breast cancer in its
earliest, most treatable stages. Congress re-authorized MQSA in 1998,
extending the program through 2002. Although MQSA was scheduled for
reauthorization last Congress, we unfortunately failed to act.
The MQSA has had a positive impact on mammography quality. FDA
inspection data continues to show overall facility compliance with the
national standards to ensure the quality of x-ray images. Currently,
over 98 percent of all mammography facilities pass the phantom image
test during their facility inspection. MQSA remains as essential tool
for early detection and for combating mortality associated with breast
cancer.
The legislation I introduce today would reauthorize MQSA for 2 years,
signifying Congress' commitment to extending the life of this important
program. Reauthorizing the act for a shorter amount of time than
previously done will allow Congress the time it needs to examine some
serious issues facing the long-term effectiveness of the act while
still maintaining vital quality standards in the interim.
In addition, this legislation would permit the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services to issue two additional and
temporary certificates that will allow facilities who offer mammography
services to continue to provide uninterrupted care while they go
through the process of reaccredidation. This is important as we
encourage more and more women to seek screening services each year.
With these significant changes, MQSA, I believe, will be more
effective than ever. While we are improving the act with this bill, we
need to tread carefully as we look to make further changes.
Mammography, like every health discipline, is an imperfect science. On
average, radiologists estimate that somewhere around 75 percent of
cancer can be found through mammography. Thus, until the technology
improves, the quality of the reading is limited.

We have to remember that in the medical field, human error is
unavoidable. Most doctors practicing today are excellent at what they
do, and placing additional regulations on them, especially in an
already highly-regulated subspecialty, can often times do more harm
than good. Congress needs to be increasingly vigilant in making sure
that practices below acceptable standards are eliminated. To that end,
one of the real benefits of MQSA is its required medical audit
procedure which mandates that each FDA-approved facility has a system
for following up on mammograms that reveal problems. In

[[Page S15065]]

other words, each facility performs a self-check on itself, helping to
ensure quality care is being given.
The impact of medical liability on the radiological profession has
been immense, leading to a shortage of quality doctors. As bad as it
has been for the profession itself, the adverse effect it has had on
patient access to care is intolerable. In places across the country,
women are having to wait weeks, even months, to get a mammography
screening. In a speech this February in Florida, the president of the
American Medical Association stated that in a recent survey of Palm
Beach, Miami Dade and Broward Counties, 7 of the 29 radiologists said
they had stopped reading mammograms--and 8 others are considering that
possibility. In addition, Orlando Regional Hospital reports that the
average wait time for women seeking mammography rose from 20 days in
2000--to 150 days in 2002. The cause of all this is that many
radiologists can't find or afford the necessary liability insurance.
The bottom line is that at a time when the medical liability crisis
is hitting the industry harder than ever, the last thing the Federal
Government should be doing is creating more avenues for abusive
lawsuits. That is why Congress must balance the need to find ways to
improve the quality and delivery of women's health, while at the same
time preserving a positive and equitable medical environment for well-
intentioned professionals to practice.
The MQSA has been an important program in increasing the quality of
mammography services for women. I thank Senator Mikulski and HELP
Committee Chairman Gregg for all of their hard work on this issue, and
I look forward to seeing this legislation through to passage by the
Senate and ultimately signed into law.
______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Allen, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 1880. A bill to establish the Special Blue Ribbon Commission on
Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay Nutrient
Pollution Control Financing. Joining me in sponsoring this measure are
my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, Allen and Santorum.
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released
its sixth annual State of the Bay report. The report is headlined ``The
Bay's Health Remains Dangerously Out of Balance and Is Getting Worse.''
Indeed, this summer the Chesapeake Bay's so-called ``dead zone''--the
area of oxygen-and life-depleted waters--extended more than 100 miles
down the Bay, the largest area ever recorded. Scientists observed
extensive algal blooms and watermen reported pulling up nets of dead
fish and crab ``jubilees''--a rare phenomenon of crabs fleeing the
water for air. The cause of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is
clear: high levels of nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants, air
deposition, runoff from farmlands, and stormwater runoff from urban and
suburban areas. The water pollution caused by high levels of nutrients,
particularly nitrogen, continues despite two decades of efforts from
all the jurisdictions in the watershed, Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, to address it.
Scientists, State and Federal agencies and citizen advocates know
what must be done to address the excessive nutrients which pollute the
Bay's water. The 304 major sewage treatment plants in the watershed
must be upgraded to reduce the nutrients coming into the Bay. Farmers
must be given the best technology and resources to keep excess
fertilizer and sediments out of the Bay. Air deposition must be
reduced. And new financing mechanisms must be developed to help local
governments control stormwater runoff.
Earlier this year, a Chesapeake Bay Commission report entitled The
Cost of a Clean Bay, found a $9.4 billion gap in the resources needed
to reduce nutrients and sediments in the Bay to levels sufficient to
remove the estuary from the Environmental Protection Agency's list of
impaired waters. While $9.4 billion seems like an enormous sum, we
should remember that the health of Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to
the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the
Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural
resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a
world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the
finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital
habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of
plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory
waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and
threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset
enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping
center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for
thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent,
multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and
restoration.
On November 3, 2003, I was joined by the six Senators and 16 Members
of the House of Representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed
States, in a bipartisan letter to President Bush urging him to commit
$1 billion to restoring the Bay's water quality. We pointed out to the
President that, with a matching State funding requirement and proper
targeting, these funds would provide a tremendous boost to the efforts
to reduce nutrient pollution in the Bay and that this investment would
pay big dividends in restoring the ecological and economic health or
our nation's greatest estuary. We realize that this request is but a
first step to bring to bear the necessary resources to accomplish the
nutrient reduction.
The legislation which we are offering today represents the next step
in the effort to close the $9.4 billion gap and help assure that the
effort to reduce nutrient pollution in Chesapeake Bay will be focused
properly and funded adequately for the long term. It directs the
Administrator of EPA to establish a special Blue Ribbon Commission on
Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution Control Financing to oversee
development of a comprehensive implementation plan to address the
funding needs and/or regulatory requirements for reducing nutrient
pollution loads in Chesapeake Bay sufficient to comply with Clean Water
Act standards by the year 2010. The Commission is charged to address
the appropriate responsibilities of the Federal, State and local
governments in financing sewage treatment plant upgrades, agricultural
and other nonpoint source runoff controls, and urban stormwater
management. It is also directed to address the opportunities for
enhancing the role of the private sector in financial support for
nutrient reduction either directly or through public/private
partnerships.
The Commission will have a vital role to play in Chesapeake Bay
restoration. Through the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program and its
partners, our scientific and technical understanding of what needs to
be done to reduce excess nutrients going into the Bay serves as a model
for the Nation. Yet these practices cannot be implemented without
sufficient funding, and current estimates suggest that a doubling of
nutrient reduction efforts to date will be required. The Commission is
critically needed to explore responsibilities, opportunities and
mechanisms for generating the financial backing needed to restore the
Chesapeake Bay. Let me add that the economics of nutrient reduction is
an issue faced by many regions of the country. Many of the
recommendations of this Commission regarding the financing of sewage
treatment plant upgrades, agricultural nutrient reduction practices,
and stormwater and air pollution control could be transferred to for
use elsewhere around the Nation.
It is our expectation that, in carrying out its functions, the
Commission will draw upon the expertise of other Federal agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and NOAA as well as State and local governments, academia
and the private and non-profit sector and establish a multidisciplinary
advisory panel to assist the Commission in preparing its report and
recommendations. Valuable work is now being carried out by the
Chesapeake Bay Program in a great number of areas including nutrient
reduction,

[[Page S15066]]

oyster restoration, submerged aquatic vegetation, and environmental
education to mention a few and it is not intended that the Commission
be in any way a substitute for the Bay Program. Rather it is to support
the work of the Bay Program by dissecting financial responsibilities
into component parts--Federal, State, local and private and by
addressing the funding and/or regulatory requirements of the work to be
done to end the Bay's water pollution from too much nutrient loading.
Establishment of the special Blue Ribbon Commission on Chesapeake Bay
Nutrient Pollution Control Financing will serve to kick start the
critical work which must now be done to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It
is supported by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission as evidenced by their letters. I ask unanimous consent that
the two letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to
support this measure.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

Chesapeake Bay Commission,

Annapolis, MD, November 17, 2003.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
SH-309 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing on behalf of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission to commend you on your efforts to
direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
a special blue ribbon Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Pollution
Control Commission. The Commission would examine how best to
finance reductions in nutrient pollution sufficient to comply
with Clean Water Act standards by the year 2010. It is the
logical next step in our efforts to restore the nation's
crown jewel estuary, the Chesapeake Bay.
Earlier this year, our members issued a report entitled The
Cost of a Clean Bay. The report found a $9.4 billion gap in
the resources needed to reduce nutrients and sediments
sufficient to remove the Bay from the EPA list of impaired
waters. While $9.4 billion seems like an enormous sum, we
should remember that the health of Chesapeake Bay is vital
not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the
watershed, but to the nation. It is the world's largest, most
productive estuary, with a worth estimated at nearly $1.2
trillion. The Bay restoration leads the world in devising new
and innovative solutions to reduce nutrient and sediment
pollution. If the Bay restoration fails, it speaks volumes
for the fate of most water quality restoration projects,
world-wide.
At this point, the partners in the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Program have a well fleshed-out game plan. The
leaders know what needs to be done and have, for the most
part, implemented policies that will support these efforts.
The stumbling block is the lack of available funding or, in
the absence of money, the identification of viable regulatory
alternatives that can provide equitable solutions.
On November 3, 2003, you joined your colleagues in the Bay
watershed in a bipartisan letter to President Bush urging him
to commit $1 billion to restoring the Bay's water quality.
You pointed out that, with a matching State funding
requirement and proper targeting, these funds would provide a
tremendous boost to the efforts to reduce nutrient pollution
in the Bay and that this investment would pay big dividends
in restoring the ecological and economic health of our
nation's greatest estuary. We offer our strong support on
this request. Furthermore, we believe that the blue ribbon
panel is its perfect complement.
Your effort represents the next--and critical--step in the
effort to close the $9.4 billion gap, ensuring that the
nutrient reduction goals will be reached. We applaud you in
your efforts and offer our assistance to you as you pursue
the best next step for the Bay restoration effort.
Sincerely,
Ann Pesiri Swanson,
Executive Director.
____

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Annapolis, MD, November 18, 2003.
Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC,
Dear Senator Sarbanes: We wish to express our support and
enthusiasm for your effort to establish a special Blue Ribbon
Commission on financing the control of nutrient pollution in
Chesapeake Bay. Your continued leadership on behalf of the
Chesapeake is most appreciated.
As you know, this summer the Chesapeake Bay experienced one
of the worst ``dead zones'' in history. Fish kills, beach
closings, and algae blooms were commonplace. Over the past
twenty years, the monitoring stations of the Chesapeake Bay
Program have revealed little to no change in key water
quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, clarity, and
algae concentration. The fundamental challenge remains
controlling nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the
Chesapeake and its tributaries.
Over the past several years, a number of different reports
have documented the financial needs of meeting the goals of
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. These reports conclude that
water pollution control, in particular, will require the most
significant financial investments. Key water pollution
control needs include sewage treatment, municipal storm
water, and agricultural runoff.
Your effort to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission
appropriately focuses on the biggest financial challenges
confronting the Chesapeake Bay. It includes a diverse
membership, and it engages the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement in developing specific recommendations to meet
the needs of the Bay. Importantly, your effort acknowledges
that regulatory mechanisms can be used to internalize
pollution control costs to minimize burdens on the region's
taxpayers.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation believes that a financial
commission is a timely and appropriate response to a number
of the difficult challenges confronting the region's policy
makers. We are very supportive of your effort, and we welcome
the opportunity to work with you to implement your ideas.
Thank you again for your leadership on behalf of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
William C. Baker,
President.

______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1882. A bill to require that certain notifications occur whenever
a query to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
reveals that a person listed in the Violent Gang and Terrorist
Organization File is attempting to purchase a firearm, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce some legislation I
consider an emergency because it overrides a misguided policy that
threatens our homeland security and exposes our Nation to more
vulnerable terrorist attacks.
The legislation I am introducing today is called the Terrorist
Apprehension Act, and it is cosponsored by Senators Schumer, Feinstein,
Corzine, and Reed of Rhode Island.
This bill directs the administration to do all it can to apprehend
potential terrorists within our borders. Sometimes they do things that
defy common sense and are simply hard to believe. This is one of the
most outrageous disclosures yet.
We have found out if someone on a terrorist watch list--someone who
is a potential threat to communities across the country--goes ahead,
buys a weapon, applies for a permit to buy a gun, and that information
is logged into the gun background check system, the Attorney General
has ordered the gun background check system not alert or even be
allowed to share critical information with law enforcement concerning
the whereabouts of the terrorist--not to give it to the FBI or the ATF
or any of the law enforcement agencies.
I have to say, this is a mind-boggling policy. We could have a
nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he
obtained a weapon, got a permit approved, the Justice Department's
current policy is to refuse to reveal any data that might be available
for law enforcement officials.
It works this way: The subject is on a terrorist watch list. This is
a formal thing. The person who is listed on a terrorist watch list--
look out, this guy is bad news, and we do not want him to roam
freely. He can go ahead and buy a gun under the rapid response network
for a gun permit. The background check is done. Then it goes into a
crime database, including the terrorist watch list. The FBI terrorist
task force cannot get the information by virtue of this policy because
by directive, the Attorney General has said this information should be
protected. To me, the protection our citizens need overrides that of
these people who are unwelcome to begin with. But nevertheless, once
they are on the terrorist watch list, we don't want to give them a lot
of courtesy, especially to buy a weapon.

In combatting terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft has shown little
concern for core civil rights. That all changes when it comes to gun
rights. The Attorney General seems more interested in protecting the
rights of terrorists to obtain guns than the protection of our
citizens.
I know many gun support groups have said: Listen, the terrorists
wouldn't buy a firearm on the legal market anyway. But evidence points
to something otherwise.

[[Page S15067]]

An investigation by my staff revealed that since September 11, in
somewhere between 13 instances and possibly as many as 21 times--and
the reason for the disparity is the information comes from two
different places, but it is at least 13 times and possibly as many as
21--a person on the terrorist watch list has attempted to or
successfully purchased firearms. Imagine. The madness is that the
person gets the firearm and the information is cut off here instead of
being available to the FBI and other law enforcement people.
In addition, the terrorists know that our gun laws are weak. Found in
the ruins of a terrorist training camp that was destroyed by U.S.
missiles in Kabul, Afghanistan was a book called ``How Can I Train
Myself For Jihad.'' The book discusses the ease with which weapons can
be purchased in the United States in order to engage in terrorism.
The guns that terrorists have access to in our country can be
devastating, such as the 50-caliber assault weapon which would take
down a helicopter, as we may have seen. This is according to the
Congressional Research Service. That weapon can penetrate 6 inches of
steel plating and has a range of a mile. One has to ask: Why is it
available at all on the civilian market?
On this issue of terrorist access to weapons, it is peculiar, at
least, to know that Attorney General Ashcroft's position is at odds
with the Department of Homeland Security. During his confirmation
earlier this year, Secretary Tom Ridge acknowledged to me in a question
publicly that the link between access to guns and terrorism is a
dangerous one.
Under oath at another hearing, the general counsel of the Department
of Homeland Security told me it was his belief that someone on the
terrorist watch list should not even be permitted to purchase guns.
Not only does the Attorney General think it is OK to allow these guns
to be purchased by terrorists, but he thinks it should be done
secretly, without law enforcement's knowledge. That has to change. We
hope the Attorney General will reverse course immediately.
Unfortunately, I doubt he even comprehends the anomaly this generates.
This is why it is critical that the Senate pass this emergency
legislation before we leave for the year. If we don't, we will put our
constituents at risk unnecessarily. My legislation is simple and to the
point. It says, if a terrorist buys a gun, law enforcement must be
notified right away. We would like to prevent them from getting the
gun, but the law, as it is for now, is the FBI, the local police, and
the regional terrorist task force must be told the time and the place
of purchase.
I introduce this bill today and hope that we can pass it as soon as
possible.
______

By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr.
Craig):
S. 1883. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
greater access for residents of frontier areas to the healthcare
services provided by community health centers; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would increase the likelihood that citizens who live on the American
frontier and in other sparsely populated areas will have access to
affordable healthcare in their communities.
Since my election to the Senate in 1996, one of my goals has been to
educate folks in Washington about what life is like in the West.
Obviously there are rural areas along the East and West Coasts and in
the Midwest. But people who live in these places are always surprised
when they travel for the first time to places like my home State of
Wyoming. They are amazed at just how rural Wyoming is.
Well, Wyoming is more than rural. Most Wyomingites live in the
remaining stretches of the American frontier. Now, that's not to say
that there aren't plenty of sparsely populated areas elsewhere, even in
coastal States. There are many places outside the West that share the
characteristics of the frontier. But almost all of Wyoming is sparsely
populated. In fact, more people live in the 68 square miles of the
District of Columbia than live in the 98,000 square miles of Wyoming.
People who live on the frontier and other sparsely populated areas
face some unique challenges, and one of those challenges is access to
affordable healthcare. People who live in frontier areas are more
likely to lack health insurance than other rural and urban citizens.
Also, frontier areas generally do not have population centers that can
support the full range of healthcare services available in most urban
and some rural areas.
One of the proven ways of improving healthcare in medically
underserved areas is through the establishment of federally qualified
community health centers, or CHCs. Community health centers are not-
for-profit providers of health care to the working poor, the uninsured,
and other vulnerable populations. These safety-net providers served ten
million people across America in 2001.
Community health centers deliver preventive and primary care to
patients regardless of their ability to pay. Almost half of the
patients treated at community health centers have no insurance coverage
at all. Community health centers set their charges according to income,
and they do not collect any fees from their poorest clients.
President Bush has proposed major increases in funding for the
establishment and expansion of community health centers, and Congress
has begun to provide that funding. Senators across the political
spectrum agree that community health centers play an important role in
providing health services to the uninsured and underinsured in many
medically underserved areas. We all agree that we ought to encourage
the development of more sites where those in need but without means can
get proper care.
Unfortunately, many frontier areas do not have community health
centers. Wyoming, for example, only has one CHC, located in Casper.
That center just opened a satellite clinic in Riverton, a town of 9,300
people almost 125 miles away, so now we have two sites.
The Federal Government keeps statistics on the degree of ``health
center penetration into the unserved.'' In other words, we keep track
of what percentage of those who need access to affordable healthcare
can get adequate service through community health centers.
In Wyoming, only 7.9 percent of the unserved had reasonable access to
community health center services, based on 2001 data. Lest you think
this is just a Wyoming problem, Mr. President, let me share some
percentages from other states: Alabama: 15.9 percent; Georgia: 8.9
percent; Indiana: 10.1 percent; Kansas: 10.4 percent; Louisiana: 4.3
percent; Maryland: 15.8 percent; Nebraska: 5.3 percent; Nevada: 7.8
percent; North Carolina: 11.1 percent; Oklahoma: 7.8 percent; Texas:
9.0 percent; and Virginia: 12.2 percent.
Why are these access figures so low? It's not because communities
aren't interested in helping their less fortunate neighbors. It's
because many communities on the frontier and in other sparsely
populated areas can't even apply for community health center funding.
Why can't they apply? Well, believe it or not, the Federal Government
doesn't consider many isolated communities to be located in ``medically
underserved areas.'' And a community has to be designated as being a
``medically underserved area'' before one can even apply for CHC
funding.
The barrier for frontier communities lies in the index that the
Federal Government uses to determine ``medical underservice.'' That
index looks at four factors: the percentage of people over 65 years of
age, and the ratio of primary-care physicians per 1,000 people.
Using these four factors, the agency has calculated that only four
Wyoming's 23 counties qualify to be ``medically underserved areas.'' I
find this interesting, since Wyoming ranks 46th out of the 50 State in
terms of physician-to-population ratio.

I have an idea about the source of this contradiction. When I went to
accounting school, one of the things I learned about was a concept
called ``statistical validity.'' What I learned was that the
statistical validity of a sample is a function of sample size: in other
words, the larger the sample, the more accurate the results associated
with the sample.
Well, as you can imagine, sparsely populated states like Wyoming
offer

[[Page S15068]]

less statistically valid samples than other states. Many of our
counties score very well on factors like infant mortality. Take Western
County, for instance. Weston County has a very low infant mortality
rate--in fact, their rate in 2002 was zero. But there were only 59
births in Weston County. Now I'm happy to see that statistic, but it
really hurts Weston County's score on the agency index.
Even looking at 5 years of data in sparsely populated counties
doesn't provide a statistically valid sample. From 1994 to 1998, Weston
County's infant mortality rate was 8.5 per 1000 births, slightly above
the national average. From 1995 to 1999, Weston County's rate jumped to
14.7 percent--nearly twice the national average.
Why did the infant mortality rate jump so dramatically in Weston
County? The only difference was that in 1999, two of the 60 babies born
in the county died soon after birth.
When two deaths have such a dramatic impact on the infant mortality
rate, it's because the sample size simply isn't large enough to provide
a valid result. Slight variations in small samples can result in huge
differences when translated into statistical data. And in my opinion,
we shouldn't be making decisions based on statistics that aren't valid
indicators of the healthcare status of a community.
I am concerned that the Federal definition of ``medically underserved
areas'' does not recognize the unique nature and needs of people who
live in the sparsely populated areas of our country. This makes me
concerned that frontier communities are going to miss out on a great
opportunity to participate in our national expansion of community
health centers.
That's why I'm joining today with my distinguished colleagues
Senators Bingaman, Thomas, and Craig to introduce the Frontier
Healthcare Access Act. We believe that people who live on the frontier
and in other sparsely populated areas ought to have a fair shot at
competing for federal support as we grow the community health center
program.
Our bill would automatically deem ``frontier areas'' to be eligible
for Federal funding for the development and expansion of community
health centers.
The bill would require no new funding--it would simply designate
frontier communities as special populations eligible for federal CHC
support. Nor would the bill create a new preference for frontier
areas--it would simply allow frontier communities into the competition
for funding. The bill would end the application of a statistical
formula that doesn't provide a valid assessment of need in sparsely
populated areas--but it would still require frontier communities to
compete with other communities to receive federal CHC support.
The Frontier Healthcare Access Act also would direct the Federal
Government to create a new definition of ``frontier area.'' The bill
would require that the new definition go beyond the traditional
population-density approach to include important factors like distance
in miles and travel time in minutes to the nearest significant
healthcare service area or market. This is important, because defining
frontier solely by population overlooks some important considerations.
For example, in some large counties, the presence of a city in one
corner skews population density and overshadows the existence of many
large frontier areas. Furthermore, a key component to frontier life is
distance. Even areas with population density as high as 20 people per
square mile should be considered frontier if the community is located
far from the closest significant service center or market.
The National Rural Health Association and the Western Governors
Association have already endorsed a definition using the factors
proposed by the Frontier Healthcare Access Act. If the federal
government adopts a similar definition, it would ensure eligibility for
community health center development and expansion for about ten million
citizens who live in more than 800 counties located in 38 states--not
just the frontier West.
Mr. President, people in hundreds of cities and towns across the
country have access to affordable healthcare services through community
health centers. People who live in sparsely populated areas ought to
have a fair opportunity to create the same sort of access.
The Frontier Healthcare Access Act would create this opportunity for
people who live in isolated communities across our great country. I
hope that my colleagues will join me in making this opportunity
possible for our citizens who live in every part of our remaining
American frontier--whether the buffalo still roam there or not.
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. 1883

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 ``Frontier Healthcare Access
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) People who live in frontier areas are medically
underserved and face unique challenges in accessing
affordable healthcare.
(2) People who live in frontier areas are more likely to
lack health insurance than other rural and urban citizens.
(3) Frontier areas generally do not have population centers
that can support the full range of healthcare services
available in most urban and some rural areas.
(4) Community health centers play an important role in
providing health services to many medically underserved areas
and populations.
(5) Many frontier areas do not have community health
centers.
(6) Many frontier areas cannot currently qualify for
community health centers because the Federal definition of
medically underserved areas or populations does not
appropriately or effectively recognize the unique nature and
needs of frontier areas and those who live in them.
(7) Any definition of frontier areas for purposes of
eligibility for Federal or State healthcare programs should
look beyond simple measures of population density to consider
such factors as the distance from and travel time to the
nearest significant healthcare service center or market.
(8) President George W. Bush has made the development of
new community health centers a priority of his
administration.
(9) People who live in frontier areas should be included
explicitly in this expansion of the community health center
program.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide
greater access for residents of frontier areas to the
healthcare services provided by community health centers.

SEC. 3. FRONTIER COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS.

Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and residents of
public housing'' and inserting ``residents of public housing,
and residents of frontier areas'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (j), (n), (o), (p), (q),
(r), (s), (q), and (s) as subsections (k), (l), (m), (n),
(o), (p), (q), (r), and (s), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (i), the following:
``(j) Residents of Frontier Areas.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants for the
purposes described in subsections (c), (e), and (f) for the
planning and delivery of services to areas identified under
paragraph (3)(B).
``(2) Supplement not supplant.--A grant awarded under this
subsection shall be expended to supplement, and not supplant,
the expenditures of the health center and the value of in-
kind contributions for the delivery of services to the
population described in paragraph (1).
``(3) Definition.--
``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `frontier
area' means a county or a rational area identified by the
Secretary in consultation with appropriate State offices of
rural health.
``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary shall through regulations
develop a definition to identify frontier areas and shall
designate residents of such areas as medically underserved
for purposes of this section. In developing such definition
the Secretary shall consider factors such as population
density, distance in miles from the nearest significant
healthcare service center or market, and travel time in
minutes from the nearest significant healthcare service
center or market.''.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Kerry):
S. 1884. A bill to assure a healthy American manufacturing sector,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Kerry):
S. 1885. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives for manufacturing businesses

[[Page S15069]]

in the United States; to the Committee on Finance.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Kerry):
S. 1886. A bill to amend the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Act of 1958 to establish the National Office for the
Development of Small Manufacturers, to increase the level of assistance
available for small manufacturers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to
introduce three bills to address the growing needs of small
manufacturers, to stimulate the manufacturing sector of our economy,
and to put back to work the millions of American workers in the
manufacturing sector that have lost their jobs in the past 3 years. The
three comprehensive bills are: the Manufacturing Assistance,
Development and Education (MADE) in America Act, the Enhance Domestic
Manufacturing and Worker Assistance Act, and the Manufacturing Jobs
Production Act.
It's no secret that during the past 3 years, manufacturing employment
in the United States has declined from 17.3 million to 14.6 million
jobs. This loss of manufacturing jobs represents a loss of more than
one in every seven such jobs. Over the past 3 years, the United States
has lost an average of 80,000 manufacturing jobs a month. The States
that rely the most on their manufacturing sector have suffered the most
during the past 3 years. Indiana has lost 67,000 manufacturing jobs,
California--297,000, Ohio--152,000, Illinois--126,000, Michigan--
127,000, Pennsylvania--133,000, South Carolina--55,200, and North
Carolina--145,300. Even in my home State of Massachusetts, we have lost
approximately 80,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2001.
The loss of manufacturing jobs is of great concern because the
manufacturing sector is more important than any other sector in
supporting overall economic growth, technological innovation, and a
high standard of living for Americans. Over the past 10 years,
manufacturers have performed nearly 60 percent of research and
development in the United States and have paid over one-third of all
corporate tax payments to State and local governments.
Further, replacing manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs will
not help stabilize the American economy. According to a University of
Michigan study, 6.5 spin-off jobs are created as a result of every new
job created in manufacturing. Service sector jobs simply cannot
generate that type of economic activity. The benefits of manufacturing
can also be found in national salary averages. In 2001, salaries and
benefits averaged $54,000 in the manufacturing sector, while the
average salary and benefits package in the private sector overall was
only $45,600.
In 1955, manufacturing jobs were 30.5 percent of all U.S. employment,
today they make up just 14 percent. The manufacturing decline has been
marked by a relocation of factories abroad along with reduced exports
and increased imports of manufactured goods. Both large and small
companies have been affected and a continued shrinking of the
manufacturing base may shift the manufacturing innovation process to
other global centers and most certainly result in a decline in U.S.
living standards.
As a member of the Finance and Commerce committees and ranking member
of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have
been fighting for the creation of new manufacturing jobs during debate
over the President's tax cuts, and I will continue to do so in the
months ahead. President Bush has done nothing to address the loss of
manufacturing jobs, and many communities across the country are
suffering because of it, as more and more plants close and more and
more jobs move overseas. This administration is indifferent to these
changes, and the pain being felt in million of American households, and
that's unacceptable.
In fact, indifferent may be too kind a word. The Bush administration
has been downright cruel to working Americans, pursuing billions of tax
cuts for the most well-off in our society as their only economic
policy, while millions of hard-working Americans have lost their jobs
and will be left with the bill from this administration's reckless
fiscal policies. In fact, you could argue that the manufacturing jobs
picture is actually worse than the hard numbers tell us. While many
estimates show that 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since
President Bush took office, in previous postwar recoveries,
manufacturing employment had recovered by this point in the business
cycle and risen by more than 5 percent. Under the Bush presidency,
manufacturing employment has continued to deteriorate steadily, falling
so far by 8 percent. Morgan Stanley's respected economists tell us that
the difference represents 2.1 million additional manufacturing jobs.
More supply-side, trickle-down, ideologically driven tax cuts are not
going to turn this around. Congress needs to take action and pass some
policies that are meaningful to people, and will actually create jobs,
and soon.
The President and his followers insist that his tax cuts are starting
to work, basing their claims on a couple of months where the overall
job creation numbers were positive. But the truth is that the meager
job gains of the last three months have done little to lift most parts
of the economy because nearly 80 percent of those small gains have come
in just three sectors: government, temporary staffing, and education
and health services. Manufacturing is not yet on the mend, and people
who are finding new jobs are finding jobs at lower pay. We need to take
action.
Small-business owners have made it clear to me, to Congress, and to
the administration what actions are needed to reinvigorate the
manufacturing sector. Unlike the Bush administration, which has ignored
these requests for help, Congress must have the courage to make the
tough decisions and not simply pander to wealthy Americans and giant
corporations with unbalanced tax cuts. The Nation's gross domestic
product may be temporarily up, but manufacturing jobs are still way
down. To get those jobs back, and to continue competing on the
international stage, our manufacturers, particularly our small
manufacturers, need adequate representation and leadership at all
levels of government, here and abroad. They need a well-educated,
highly skilled, productive labor force; Federal contracting and
subcontracting opportunities; greater access to capital; foreign patent
protection; trade adjustment, global marketing, and entrepreneurial
development assistance; and responsible, targeted tax credits. This
legislation addresses those needs, while the President's tax cuts
continue to undercut them.
Mr. President, we often receive complaints that the Federal and State
small business programs duplicate, rather than complement, each other.
While the SBA has stated that it has sufficient systems and programs in
place to address the concerns of manufacturers, statistics on small
manufacturers, as well as the business owners themselves, prove
otherwise. Many state that accessing these programs is often confusing
and difficult because they are fragmented, spread out and not tailored
to bridge gaps found between State and Federal assistance programs. To
address these problems, my bill will create the National Office for the
Development of Small Manufacturers at the Small Business
Administration, led by an associate administrator. This new office will
be responsible for coordinating and strengthening existing programs, as
well as establishing new SBA programs to address the needs of small
manufacturers and to promote programs throughout the Federal Government
that assist small- and medium-size manufacturers. While the President
has established a ``new'' manufacturing czar at the Department of
Commerce, this action is seen as lateral movement and does nothing to
assist those manufacturers that are suffering the most, the Nation's
small business manufacturers.

Once established, the National Office for the Development of Small
Manufacturers will be responsible for implementing a Manufacturing
Corps through block grants to each State that will address the skilled
worker crisis in this country by promoting technical education
pertinent to the manufacturing sector. First, the Manufacturing Corps
would help current manufacturing workers improve their

[[Page S15070]]

skill set and advance their technical abilities. Each State's grant
would ultimately provide small manufacturers with more highly skilled
workers--something that the industry has posed as a global competitive
disadvantage--and allow the unemployed and those in declining
industries to make the pivotal move back to work or to other
manufacturing sectors, respectively.
Second, the Manufacturing Corps would help small manufacturers fill
their skilled labor needs by encouraging college and university
students studying engineering, computers, and other high-tech fields to
work in the small manufacturing sector by offering to repay a portion
of their student loans if they do so for a specified period of time.
Similar to incentives for students going into the nonprofit or
government work, the government would repay the loans of those who
commit to working for a small manufacturer for 4 years following
graduation if their annual employment compensation does not exceed
$60,000.
Third, the Manufacturing Corps would establish a vocational and
technology training for students at the high school level to prepare
students who are not planning to attend college directly after
graduation to enter the manufacturing sector. As in woodshop or auto
shop courses, high school students will learn the technical skills to
become effective, skilled manufacturing employees, such as machinists
or metal workers. Additionally, schools providing such assistance would
partner with community manufacturers to address their skilled worker
needs and to provide employment opportunities for students after
graduation.
Another duty charged to the National Office for the Development of
Small Manufacturers is to create a government-wide ``One Stop Small
Manufacturing Shop'' for small manufacturers. This online web portal
will serve as the single point of contact for information on
entrepreneurial development assistance, access to capital, specific
outreach programs, contracting opportunities, and R&D projects. We
already have successful programs that can be used as a prototype for
the web page such as the National Industrial Manufacturing Assistance
Program's Web site at the Office of Industrial Technologies at the
Department of Energy.
The greatest challenge to small businesses, as with all businesses,
is the ability to obtain contracts. The BusinessLINC program within the
SBA has been proven, since its inception, to successfully match small
businesses with potential clients. The teaming model has created
thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in contracts. The
BusinessLINC-M program will also team small businesses with non-
governmental organizations that can have a direct impact on their
bottom-line through contracting or mentoring. There is a great
potential for the BusinessLINC-M program to match suppliers with
distributors, offer contracting and subcontracting opportunities, which
directly benefits the local economy while allowing access to vendors in
the distributors' backyards. The National Office for the Development of
Small Manufacturers will create a similar program to foster symbiotic
partnerships between small and large businesses to spur contracting
opportunities. This BusinessLINC-M program would instead match up small
manufacturers with larger firms that could utilize their products,
creating subcontracting opportunities and a stronger supply chain.

Finally, the National Office for the Development of Small
Manufacturers will develop a manufacturing mentor-protege program to
focus on improving the management practices, domestic and foreign
marketing abilities, efficiency, and product development of small
manufacturers by pairing them with larger, more experienced
manufacturers that would provide such guidance.
One of the first things we can do to help small manufacturers is to
tailor the SBA's loan and venture capital programs so that they offer
small manufacturers affordable, long-term financing in amounts that are
truly appropriate for them. This legislation will assist small
businesses with fixed-asset costs, working capital, loan dollars to
help them export what they have produced in the United States, and
venture capital investments to spur expansion and growth.
To provide that capital, we have increased the loan amounts available
to small manufacturers, increased venture leverage, and allowed
refinancing of certain existing business debt. The maximum 504 loan,
for equipment and property, will be raised from $1 million to $4
million, the maximum microloan will be raised from $35,000 to $50,000,
and the gross loan amount for 7(a) working capital loans will increase
from $1 million to $4 million for small manufacturers.
Investors should be encouraged to devote more of their money to the
fastest growing small manufacturers. The SBIC program can provide that
venture capital money. Under this bill, if SBICs invest 50 percent in
small manufacturers, then a single fund can leverage $150 million
instead of $115 million and a manager with several SBICs can leverage
$185 million from the SBA. The legislation also restores and increases
funding to establish additional New Markets Venture Capital firms and
increases the SBA's leverage against private funds raised in the New
Markets Venture Capital program from 150 percent to 200 percent so
these venture capital firms can invest more in small manufacturers.
For growing small businesses using the loans from the 504 program to
buy new equipment or buildings, we raise the limit for lenders so that
they must create or retain one job for every $100,000 loaned to
manufacturers. This is in place of the $35,000 that is currently in
place. For non-manufacturers, it will be raised to $50,000. For
manufacturers, the costs of retaining jobs are higher, and we want
these jobs to be good living wages and not the $3 per hour or lower
that exists in some countries.
After a natural disaster, the already slumping manufacturing industry
faces an even greater challenge in returning business to normal and
affording the costs of repair. Recognizing that they face these
problems, the MADE in America Act changes several provisions to the
SBA's disaster loan program. It increases the maximum loan size from
$1.5 million to $5 million; allows small manufacturers to consolidate
debt by refinancing not just existing disaster loans but any
outstanding business loan; waives the principal and interest payments
for 6 months; authorizes the administration to waive unreasonable size
limitations; and prohibits the SBA from selling all disaster loans to
other creditors. Disaster loans, at the most, have an interest rate of
4 percent and terms of up to 30 years. This low rate and long term
keeps manufacturers' payments down as well as their debt, particularly
when they refinance their more expensive business loans.

To help small manufacturers and small R&D firms, we need to reduce
trade barriers, so that they are able to sell their products and
technologies in other countries. Small-business owners commonly cited
the expense required to secure foreign patent protection as a
significant barrier to their ability to operate in international
markets. Part of encouraging the spread of their innovations into other
countries is decreasing their vulnerability to big foreign corporations
that can take their ideas when they try to sell their products around
the world. Our small businesses need patent protection. However, the
costs associated with filing such patents are often prohibitively
expensive.
For example, Mr. Clifford Hoyt, who is vice president and chief
technology officer of Cambridge Research and Instrumentation, testified
on June 21, 2001, as part of the Committee's hearing on reauthorization
of the STTR program that cost of ``patent protection in Europe is
$20,000.'' Information from the American Intellectual Property Law
Association's meeting shows that the costs of foreign patents range
from $7,200 in Canada to $27,200 in Japan. Those costs include fees for
filing, examination, translation and attorneys.
With this legislation, to address the intellectual property problem
for small exporters, I propose enacting a variation of a bill I
introduced 2 years ago. The MADE in America Act would establish a self-
sustaining grant fund to help small manufacturers and R&D firms pay for
the cost associated with foreign patent protection. Each company would
be limited to one grant and, in order to be eligible for the

[[Page S15071]]

grant, it must have already filed for patent protection in the United
States. Both of these provisions are designed to ensure, to the extent
possible, that companies apply for assistance for their most promising
technology and therefore are in the best position to return money to
the grant fund when their patented technology becomes profitable. By
giving the companies only one shot at a grant to protect and make money
from their technologies, it forces them to select the one most likely
to succeed and have sales. At the same time, requiring companies to
have already filed for patent protection in the United States prior to
seeking a foreign patent grant is a gauge of the company's confidence
in the commercial potential of its technology.
Ultimately, the goal is to create a self-sustaining grant fund. To do
so, in return for the grants, each recipient would be obligated to pay
5 percent of its related export sales or licensing fees to the fund, to
be known as the ``Small Business Foreign Patent Protection Grant
Fund.'' To maintain a reasonable incentive for the small businesses,
the total amount recipients would be required to pay would be capped at
four times the amount of the grant, which for a $25,000 grant would be
$100,000.
When I first introduced this bill a couple of years ago, the grants
were limited to companies that participate in the SBA's SBIR and STTR
programs. However, this bill opens the grant funding to all small
firms, while reserving 50 percent of the money for SBIR and STTR firms
through the first three quarters to each year. Intellectual property
protection is critical to these small firms that have a great product
or invention, and keeping these innovations in the hands of American
firms is important to the U.S. economy.
Mr. President, today I am also introducing the Enhance Domestic
Manufacturing and Worker Assistance Act. America's manufacturing
decline and the associated loss of good, stable manufacturing jobs has
been marked by a relocation of factories abroad along with reduced
exports and increased imports of manufactured goods. This legislation
will respond to the manufacturing crisis in two ways. The proposal
recognizes the harmful impact that trade has on small manufacturers and
provides assistance to those workers, companies and communities that
have suffered through Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. The
proposal also provides critical assistance to U.S. domestic
manufacturers to ensure that they adjust to the global economy and
remain competitive in the 21st century.

First of all, for those workers, businesses and communities that have
been harmed by trade, my bill assists them by reauthorizing our Trade
Adjustment Assistance programs for workers and business firms. The bill
includes elements of an innovative program to assist similarly situated
communities. Recognizing that entire communities experience economic
displacement, this proposal will assist harmed communities in exploring
new avenues of economic development and job creation. Combined, these
programs will assist hundreds of mostly small- and medium-sized
manufacturing and agricultural companies that experience loss of jobs
and sales due to import competition and other adverse consequences of
trade. For example, TAA for workers provides income support, job search
and worker relation assistance for affected workers.
Next, my legislation will enhance two programs that have proven
effective in assisting domestic manufacturing firms. For example, the
bill will strengthen the very effective Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program. This program assists struggling small- and medium-
size manufacturers to modernize, increase productivity, cut waste,
achieve higher profits, and compete in the demanding global market.
With increased funding, the MEP program can expand its program reach
and decrease the fees paid by small manufacturers to access the
assistance. It is exactly this type of program that will make American
manufacturers competitive again, allowing them to maintain existing
jobs and create additional high-skilled and high-paying jobs in the
United States.
In addition, my legislation increases funding for the Advanced
Technology Partnership program. This very important program fosters
public-private partnerships to accelerate the development of innovative
technologies and bridges the gap between the research lab and the
market place. The program has been very effective in accelerating the
development of innovative technologies that promise significant
commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the Nation.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has sought to eliminate this
program, at a time when technological change is faster than ever before
and small manufacturers must be technologically competitive.
Strengthening the MEP and ATP programs will go a long way in
assisting small domestic manufacturers as they attempt to regain market
share lost to international competition and recover from the resulting
devastating job losses.
Finally, this bill will also create an ``Office of Small Business''
within the Office of the United States Trade Representative that will
focus on the issues affecting small- and medium-size manufacturers as
they relate to our international trade policy. This proposal is very
similar to a proposal that I offered with Senator Olympia Snowe in the
107th Congress. Small manufacturers are directly impacted by our trade
policies--often adversely--yet they do not have a seat at the table and
lack the ability to effectively express their concerns. The
establishment of this office will ensure that issues important to small
manufacturers are taken into consideration as our Nation's trade policy
is carried out in the future and will assist small businesses in export
promotion and trade compliance.

The final piece of my legislation plan to enhance U.S. manufacturing
is my bill titled the ``Manufacturing Job Production Act.'' The bill
has four components, all of which are fiscally responsible. None of
them will by themselves completely make up for the jobs lost during
this administration, but they will each do their part in stimulating
new job creation and new investment in manufacturing firms.
The first component of my plan is a Temporary Manufacturing Job
Creation Tax Credit. It is a similar proposal to one I introduced
earlier this year, when we were debating the President's third major
tax cut in 3 years. My idea is straightforward: Any domestic
manufacturer would receive an income tax credit based on a percentage
of the net increase in taxable Social Security payroll linked to new
manufacturing/production jobs, comparing total applicable payroll for
one year to the previous year, adjusted for inflation. The credit would
apply only to domestic production/manufacturing jobs created in 2004
and 2005, and it would include jobs created in U.S. territories, and
those created by foreign-owned companies in the United States or its
territories.
Unlike many of the administration's tax cuts, which carry huge costs
at the vague promise of a positive economic result, my idea is outcome-
based because it only costs money if it actually works. Plus, it has a
built-in safety valve to prevent abuse, because it prevents firms from
receiving tax credits if they create new manufacturing jobs while
simultaneously laying off other workers, and it stops companies from
tilting the benefits to high-salary workers because these salaries are
already above the Social Security payroll tax cap. By comparing payroll
taxes paid over a whole year, it also provides an incentive for firms
to hire new workers and keep them on payroll and makes the calculation
simple for businesses. It also provides an employment stimulus for U.S.
companies with subsidiaries or manufacturing facilities on U.S.
possessions, such as Puerto Rico.
My proposal would be in place for 2 years, and the Joint Committee on
Taxation estimates that it would cost less than $4 billion. Surely we
could pass this proposal and offset its modest cost by finally closing
some of the Enron tax loopholes or passing the corporate inversion
proposals that have previously passed this body unanimously, only to be
opposed by the House. I think the percentage of Americans that would
support that tradeoff would be upwards of 80 percent. Paying for this
proposal by closing tax loopholes for wealthy corporation makes perfect
sense. It will help our economy grow and help slow the flow of
manufacturing jobs overseas.

[[Page S15072]]

The second element of may plan expands upon a capital gains provision
that I have included in other legislation. Section 4 of S. 842, my
small business tax stimulus bill, provides that there shall be no
capital gains tax applied to new equity investments in small businesses
with gross sales under $100 million, if the investments are held for at
least 4 years. The zero capital gains tax applies to businesses
involved in certain ``critical technologies'' as well as specialized
Small Business Investment Companies, or SSBICs. For the Manufacturing
Job Production Act, this capital gains proposal is expanded to include
new equity investments in small manufacturing firms. Such a proposal
should generate new investments in manufacturing, particularly small
manufacturing companies that have been so damaged by recent economic
trends. And like the job creation credit, it only costs significant
money if it has the desired effect. That factor alone makes it far
preferable to the Republican ``throw it and see if it sticks'' tax cut
strategy.

The third part of my manufacturing plan is a revised BRIDGE Act,
designed to give a little extra boost to small manufacturers. The
BRIDGE Act stands for Business Retained Income During Growth and
Expansion. It will help ensure that rapidly expanding, entrepreneurial
businesses have access to the capital they need to continue creating
jobs and stimulating the economy.
Each year, the United States economy generates 600,000 to 800,000 new
businesses. Most new business start small and stay small--but some
evolve into fast-growth companies with the capacity to propel the
economy forward. These fast-growing companies create the most new jobs,
yet access to financing--particularly in the current economic
environment, but also when the economy is strong--presents a pivotal
challenge to them. A typical startup may open its doors with a
combination of personal savings, credit card borrowing, and family
lending. Once a business has grown past a certain size--say, when sales
reach $10 million or more--the company is better able to attract
external financing at a reasonable cost. However, there are many
companies in a middle range, including many small manufacturers, which
desperately need additional financing in the range of $250,000 to $1
million. These companies face a severe credit crunch that limits their
growth and the number of new jobs they can create.
I believe that if congress does anything to assist small
manufacturers, it should take steps to ease the credit crunch for those
climbing the economic ladder from small- to medium-size enterprise,
thereby generating new ones. The BRIDGE Act addresses this financing
gap. As ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I have been the leading voice for this idea in the
Senate, and it is something worth trying. Like my other proposals for
tax relief for small manufacturers, it only generates cost to taxpayers
if it actually works.
The BRIDGE Act is simple. It would allow a fast-growing business with
less than $10 million in sales to temporarily defer up to $250,000 of
its Federal income tax liability, but only if the money is reinvested
in the company. The 2-year deferral would be repayable wit interest
over a 4-year period. For small manufacturers, the maximum tax deferral
would be $400,000, and the payback period would be extended to a
maximum of 6 years. Thus, the act will free up new investment capital
for growing companies by allowing them to use a portion of their
Federal tax liability for self-financing. Its revenue cost is minimal--
in fact, if the program is implemented temporarily, as in my bill, it
actually raises a small amount in the 10-year budget window--since the
deferred taxes are paid back with interest.
The fourth and final component of my tax relief plan for small
manufacturers is to make permanent the increase in Section 179 small
business expensing that was passed earlier this year as part of the
President's third tax cut. However, this increase is set to expire at
the end of 2005. While the recent increase does not help the smallest
of small businesses, it can be helpful to small manufacturers who
purchase more expensive equipment. It is one element of the various
Bush tax cuts that deserves to be made permanent. My proposal would
permanently increase the annual expensing limit to $100,000.
Mr. President, we may not have all the answers here in the Congress.
Some of these trends in manufacturing employment have taken a long time
to develop, and we won't be able to turn them around overnight. But at
least we shouldn't ignore the changes and act as if more tax cuts will
solve the problem. My manufacturing tax plan contains four reasonable,
responsible components--and most will cost money only if they are
actually effective. It's time for this administration to get its head
out of the sand and start proposing job-creating strategies that will
actually work.
Mr. President, nearly 3 million Americans, all across this Nation,
have lost their jobs since 2000. We need to act now, with a
comprehensive strategy that not only incorporates tax cuts but also
includes real job training, business development, capital access, and
levels the playing field for U.S. manufacturers. I believe this
legislation addresses many of the concerns of the small business
community and will take a significant step towards reversing the
current trend of economic decline and job loss in the manufacturing
sector.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the MADE in America Act, the
Enhance Domestic Manufacturing and Worker Assistance Act, and the
Manufacturing Jobs Production Act be printed in the Record, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support these bills.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1884

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 ``Enhance Domestic
Manufacturing and Worker Assistance Act of 2003''.

TITLE I--EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 101. EXTENSION FOR WORKERS AND FIRMS.

(a) In General.--Section 285 (a) and (b) (1) and (2) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 note) are amended by
striking ``September 30, 2007'' each place it appears and
inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(b) Authorization.--
(1) Workers.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2317) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2007''
and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(2) Firms.--
(A) In general.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``$16,000,000'' and inserting
``$32,000,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2012''.
(B) Expansion of loans.--Section 255(h) of such Act (19
U.S.C. 2345) is amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$3,000,000'' and
inserting ``$6,000,000''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000,000''.
(3) Farmers.--Section 298(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2401g) is amended by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2012''.
(c) Fishermen.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
for purposes of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) fishermen who harvest wild
stock shall be eligible for adjustment assistance to the same
extent and in the same manner as a group of workers under
such chapter 2.

SEC. 102. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2371 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 4--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES

``SEC. 271. DEFINITIONS.

``In this chapter:
``(1) Affected domestic producer.--The term `affected
domestic producer' means any manufacturer, producer, farmer,
rancher, fisherman or worker representative (including
associations of such persons) that was affected by a finding
under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or by an antidumping or
countervailing duty order issued under title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930.
``(2) Agricultural commodity producer.--The term
`agricultural commodity producer' has the same meaning as the
term `person' as prescribed by regulations promulgated under
section 1001(5) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308(5)).
``(3) Community.--The term `community' means a city,
county, or other political subdivision of a State or a
consortium of political subdivisions of a State that the
Secretary certifies as being negatively impacted by trade.
``(4) Community negatively impacted by trade.--A community
negatively impacted by trade means a community with respect
to which a determination has been made under section 273.

[[Page S15073]]

``(5) Eligible community.--The term `eligible community'
means a community certified under section 273 for assistance
under this chapter.
``(6) Fisherman.--
``(A) In general.--The term `fisherman' means any person
who--
``(i) is engaged in commercial fishing; or
``(ii) is a United States fish processor.
``(B) Commercial fishing, fish, fishery, fishing, fishing
vessel, person, and united states fish processor.--The terms
`commercial fishing', `fish', `fishery', `fishing', `fishing
vessel', `person', and `United States fish processor' have
the same meanings as such terms have in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802).
``(7) Job loss.--The term `job loss' means the total or
partial separation of an individual, as those terms are
defined in section 247.
``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Commerce.

``SEC. 272. COMMUNITY TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of the Enhance Domestic Manufacturing and Worker
Assistance Act of 2003, the Secretary shall establish a Trade
Adjustment Assistance for Communities Program at the
Department of Commerce.
``(b) Personnel.--The Secretary shall designate such staff
as may be necessary to carry out the responsibilities
described in this chapter.
``(c) Coordination of Federal Response.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) provide leadership, support, and coordination for a
comprehensive management program to address economic
dislocation in eligible communities;
``(2) coordinate the Federal response to an eligible
community--
``(A) by identifying all Federal, State, and local
resources that are available to assist the eligible community
in recovering from economic distress;
``(B) by ensuring that all Federal agencies offering
assistance to an eligible community do so in a targeted,
integrated manner that ensures that an eligible community has
access to all available Federal assistance;
``(C) by assuring timely consultation and cooperation
between Federal, State, and regional officials concerning
economic adjustment for an eligible community; and
``(D) by identifying and strengthening existing agency
mechanisms designed to assist eligible communities in their
efforts to achieve economic adjustment and workforce
reemployment;
``(3) provide comprehensive technical assistance to any
eligible community in the efforts of that community to--
``(A) identify serious economic problems in the community
that are the result of negative impacts from trade;
``(B) integrate the major groups and organizations
significantly affected by the economic adjustment;
``(C) access Federal, State, and local resources designed
to assist in economic development and trade adjustment
assistance;
``(D) diversify and strengthen the community economy; and
``(E) develop a community-based strategic plan to address
economic development and workforce dislocation, including
unemployment among agricultural commodity producers, and
fishermen;
``(4) establish specific criteria for submission and
evaluation of a strategic plan submitted under section
274(d);
``(5) establish specific criteria for submitting and
evaluating applications for grants under section 275; and
``(6) administer the grant programs established under
sections 274 and 275.

``SEC. 273. CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION.

``(a) Certification.--Not later than 45 days after an event
described in subsection (c)(1), the Secretary of Commerce
shall determine if a community described in subsection (b)(1)
is negatively impacted by trade, and if a positive
determination is made, shall certify the community for
assistance under this chapter.
``(b) Determination That Community Is Eligible.--
``(1) Community described.--A community described in this
paragraph means a community with respect to which--
``(A) the Secretary of Labor certifies a group of workers
(or their authorized representative) in the community as
eligible for assistance pursuant to section 223;
``(B) the Secretary of Commerce certifies a firm located in
the community as eligible for adjustment assistance under
section 251;
``(C) the Secretary of Agriculture certifies a group of
agricultural commodity producers (or their authorized
representative) in the community as eligible for adjustment
assistance under section 293;
``(D) an affected domestic producer is located in the
community; or
``(E) the Secretary determines that a significant number of
fishermen in the community is negatively impacted by trade.
``(2) Negatively impacted by trade.--The Secretary shall
determine that a community is negatively impacted by trade,
after taking into consideration--
``(A) the number of jobs affected compared to the size of
workforce in the community;
``(B) the severity of the rates of unemployment in the
community and the duration of the unemployment in the
community;
``(C) the income levels and the extent of underemployment
in the community;
``(D) the outmigration of population from the community and
the extent to which the outmigration is causing economic
injury in the community; and
``(E) the unique problems and needs of the community.
``(c) Definition and Special Rules.--
``(1) Event described.--An event described in this
paragraph means one of the following:
``(A) A notification described in paragraph (2).
``(B) A certification of a firm under section 251.
``(C) A finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or an
antidumping or countervailing duty order issued under title
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.
``(D) A determination by the Secretary that a significant
number of fishermen in a community have been negatively
impacted by trade.
``(2) Notification.--The Secretary of Labor, immediately
upon making a determination that a group of workers is
eligible for trade adjustment assistance under section 223,
(or the Secretary of Agriculture, immediately upon making a
determination that a group of agricultural commodity
producers is eligible for adjustment assistance under section
293, as the case may be) shall notify the Secretary of
Commerce of the determination.
``(d) Notification to Eligible Communities.--Immediately
upon certification by the Secretary of Commerce that a
community is eligible for assistance under subsection (b),
the Secretary shall notify the community--
``(1) of the determination under subsection (b);
``(2) of the provisions of this chapter;
``(3) how to access the clearinghouse established by the
Department of Commerce regarding available economic
assistance;
``(4) how to obtain technical assistance provided under
section 272(c)(3); and
``(5) how to obtain grants, tax credits, low income loans,
and other appropriate economic assistance.

``SEC. 274. STRATEGIC PLANS.

``(a) In General.--An eligible community may develop a
strategic plan for community economic adjustment and
diversification and shall be eligible for assistance as
provided for under section 275.
``(b) Requirements for Strategic Plan.--A strategic plan
shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
``(1) A description and justification of the capacity for
economic adjustment, including the method of financing to be
used.
``(2) A description of the commitment of the community to
the strategic plan over the long term and the participation
and input of groups affected by economic dislocation.
``(3) A description of the projects to be undertaken by the
eligible community.
``(4) A description of how the plan and the projects to be
undertaken by the eligible community will lead to job
creation and job retention in the community.
``(5) A description of how the plan will achieve economic
adjustment and diversification.
``(6) A description of how the plan and the projects will
contribute to establishing or maintaining a level of public
services necessary to attract and retain economic investment.
``(7) A description and justification for the cost and
timing of proposed basic and advanced infrastructure
improvements in the eligible community.
``(8) A description of how the plan will address the
occupational and workforce conditions in the eligible
community.
``(9) A description of the educational programs available
for workforce training and future employment needs.
``(10) A description of how the plan will adapt to changing
markets and business cycles.
``(11) A description and justification for the cost and
timing of the total funds required by the community for
economic assistance.
``(12) A graduation strategy through which the eligible
community demonstrates that the community will terminate the
need for Federal assistance.
``(c) Grants To Develop Strategic Plans.--The Secretary,
upon receipt of an application from an eligible community,
may award a grant to that community to be used to develop and
implement the strategic plan.
``(d) Submission of Plan.--A strategic plan developed under
subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Secretary for
evaluation and approval.

``SEC. 275. GRANTS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, upon approval of a
strategic plan from an eligible community, may award a grant
to that community to carry out any project or program that is
certified by the Secretary to be included in the strategic
plan approved under section 274(d), or consistent with that
plan.
``(b) Additional Grants.--Subject to paragraph (2), in
order to assist eligible communities to obtain funds under
Federal grant programs, other than the grants provided for in
section 274(c) or subsection (a), the Secretary may, on the
application of an eligible community, make a supplemental
grant to the community if--
``(1) the purpose of the grant program from which the grant
is made is to provide technical or other assistance for
planning, constructing, or equipping public works facilities
or to provide assistance for public service projects; and

[[Page S15074]]

``(2) the grant is 1 for which the community is eligible
except for the community's inability to meet the non-Federal
share requirements of the grant program.
``(c) Rural Community Preference.--The Secretary shall
develop guidelines to ensure that rural communities receive
preference in the allocation of resources.

``SEC. 276. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of
this chapter. Not later than 60 days before implementing any
regulation or guideline proposed by the Secretary with
respect to this chapter, the Secretary shall submit the
regulation or guideline to the Committee on Finance of the
Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives for approval.
``(b) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds appropriated under
this chapter shall be used to supplement and not supplant
other Federal, State, and local public funds expended to
provide economic development assistance for communities.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this chapter
amounts as follows:
``(1) For fiscal year 2005, $350,000,000.
``(2) For each of fiscal years 2006 through 2015, the
amount authorized to be appropriated by this subsection for
the preceding fiscal year increased by a percentage equal to
the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the August 31
of such preceding fiscal year, exceeds
``(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Termination.--Section 285(b) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Assistance for communities.--Technical assistance and
other payments may not be provided under chapter 4 after
September 30, 2015.''.
(2) Table of contents.--The table of contents for title II
of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by striking the items
relating to chapter 4 of title II and inserting after the
items relating to chapter 3 the following new items:

``Chapter 4--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities

``Sec. 271. Definitions.
``Sec. 272. Community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
``Sec. 273. Certification and notification.
``Sec. 274. Strategic plans.
``Sec. 275. Grants for economic development.
``Sec. 276. General provisions.''.

(c) Judicial Review.--Section 284(a) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2395(a)) is amended by striking ``section
271'' and inserting ``section 273''.
(d) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect on October 1, 2004.

SEC. 103. OFFICE OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 255 the following new section:

``SEC. 255A. OFFICE OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of the Enhance Domestic Manufacturing and Worker
Assistance Act of 2003, there shall be established in the
International Trade Administration of the Department of
Commerce an Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
``(b) Personnel.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
and shall have such staff as may be necessary to carry out
the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce described
in this chapter.
``(c) Functions.--The Office shall assist the Secretary of
Commerce in carrying out the Secretary's responsibilities
under this chapter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 255, the following new item:

``Sec. 255A. Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.''.

TITLE II--REAUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program amounts as
follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2005, $212,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2006, $272,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2007, $332,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2008, $392,000,000.
(5) For fiscal year 2009, $452,000,000.
(6) For fiscal year 2010, $512,000,000.
(7) For fiscal year 2011, $572,000,000.
(8) For fiscal year 2012, $632,000,000.
(9) For fiscal year 2013, $692,000,000.
(10) For fiscal year 2014, $752,000,000.
(11) For fiscal year 2015, $812,000,000.
(b) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program Defined.--
In this section, the term ``Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program'' means the program of Manufacturing
Extension Partnership carried out by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology under section 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278l),
as provided in part 292 of title 15, Code of Federal
Regulations.

SEC. 202. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

There are authorized to be appropriated for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out the
Advanced Technology Program under section 28 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n),
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS OFFICE

SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title I of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171) is amended by adding after section 141,
the following new section:

``SEC. 141A. SMALL BUSINESS OFFICE.

``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of the Enhance Domestic Manufacturing and Worker
Assistance Act of 2003, there shall be established in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative an Office of
Small Business.
``(b) Personnel.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
and shall have such staff as may be necessary to carry out
the functions and responsibilities described in this section.
``(c) Functions.--The Office shall--
``(1) assist the United States Trade Representative in
carrying out the Trade Representative's responsibilities
under this chapter; and
``(2) ensure that small business manufacturing issues are
taken into consideration in carrying out those
responsibilities.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 141, the following new item:

``Sec. 141A. Office of Small Business.''.

S. 1885

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 ``Manufacturing Job Production
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY MANUFACTURING JOB CREATION TAX CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subpart F of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to rules for computing work opportunity
credit) is amended by inserting after section 51A the
following new section:

``SEC. 51B. REFUND OF PAYROLL TAXES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEES DURING 2004 AND 2005.

``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an employee's first
taxable year beginning in any applicable calendar year, the
amount of the work opportunity credit determined under
section 51 (without regard to this section) for the taxable
year shall be increased by the increased manufacturing wages
payroll tax rebate amount.
``(b) Applicable Calendar Year.--For purposes of this
section, the term `applicable calendar year' means 2004 and
2005.
``(c) Increased Manufacturing Wages Payroll Tax Rebate
Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`increased manufacturing wages payroll tax rebate amount'
means an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the
excess (if any) of--
``(A) the qualified manufacturing wages paid or incurred by
the employer with respect to employment during the applicable
calendar year, over
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the qualified manufacturing wages paid or incurred by
the employer with respect to employment during the previous
calendar year, plus
``(ii) an amount equal to the amount determined under
clause (i) multiplied by a percentage equal to the percentage
change in the contribution and benefit base under section 230
of the Social Security Act from the applicable calendar year
to the previous calendar year.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `applicable percentage' means--
``(A) for 2004, 50 percent, and
``(B) for 2005, 25 percent.
``(d) Other Definitions and Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Qualified manufacturing wages.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified manufacturing wages'
means wages which are paid by the taxpayer and included under
section 263A in the cost of property produced by the
taxpayer.
``(B) Wages.--The term `wages' has the meaning given such
term by section 3121(a), except that in the case of any
employer subject to tax under chapter 22 with respect to any
employee, the such term includes compensation within the
meaning of section 3231(e).
``(C) United States.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
term `United States' includes the territories and possessions
of the United States.
``(2) Predecessors.--Any reference in this section to an
employer shall include a reference to a predecessor.
``(3) Other rules.--Rules similar to the rules of sections
51(k) and 52 shall apply.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section,
including

[[Page S15075]]

regulations for the application of this section in the case
of acquisitions and dispositions.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart F of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 51A the
following new item:

``Sec. 51B. Refund of payroll taxes attributable to new manufacturing
employees during 2004 and 2005.''.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS OF EXCLUSIONS AND ROLLOVERS OF GAIN ON
QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

(a) Exclusion of Gain on Qualified Small Business Stock.--
(1) Increase in exclusion percentage.--
(A) In general.--Section 1202(a)(1) (relating to exclusion
for gain from certain small business stock) is amended by
striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``75 percent''.
(B) 100-percent exclusion for critical technology, small
manufacturing, and specialized small business investment
businesses.--Section 1202(a) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Critical technology, small manufacturing, and
specialized small business investment businesses.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of qualified small business
stock acquired after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph which is stock in--
``(i) a critical technology corporation,
``(ii) a manufacturing corporation, or
``(iii) a corporation which is a specialized small business
investment company (as defined in subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii)),
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `100 percent'
for `75 percent'.
``(B) Critical technology corporation.--The term `critical
technology corporation' means a corporation substantially all
of the active business activities of which during
substantially all of a taxpayer's holding period of stock in
the corporation are in connection with--
``(i) transportation or homeland security technologies,
``(ii) antiterrorism technologies,
``(iii) technologies enhancing security by improving
methods of personal identification (including biometrics),
``(iv) environmental technologies for pollution
minimization, remediation, or waste management,
``(v) national defense technologies, or
``(vi) energy efficiency or the development of non-fossil
based fuel source technologies.
``(C) Manufacturing corporation.--The term `manufacturing
corporation' means a corporation substantially all of the
active business activities of which during substantially all
of a taxpayer's holding period of stock in the corporation
are in connection with manufacturing (as determined under the
North American Industrial Classification System).''.
(C) Empowerment zone conforming amendment.--Section
1202(a)(2)(A) is amended--
(i) by striking ``60 percent'' and inserting ``100
percent'', and
(ii) by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``75
percent''.
(2) Decrease in holding period.--
(A) In general.--Section 1202(a)(1) is amended by striking
``5 years'' and inserting ``4 years''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1202(j)(1)(A) is amended
by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``4 years''.
(3) Exclusion available to corporations.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 (relating
to partial exclusion for gains from certain small business
stock) is amended by striking ``other than a corporation''.
(B) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 1202 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Stock held among members of controlled group not
eligible.--Stock of a member of a parent-subsidiary
controlled group (as defined in subsection (d)(3)) shall not
be treated as qualified small business stock while held by
another member of such group.''.
(4) Stock of larger businesses eligible for exclusion.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 1202(d) (defining
qualified small business) is amended by striking
``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$100,000,000''.
(B) Inflation adjustment.--Section 1202(d) (defining
qualified small business) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Inflation adjustment of asset limitation.--In the
case of stock issued in any calendar year after 2004, the
$100,000,000 amount contained in paragraph (1) shall be
increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by
substituting `calendar year 2003' for `calendar year 1992' in
subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(b) Increase in Period To Purchase Replacement Stock and
Qualify for Rollover.--
(1) In general.--Section 1045(a)(2) (relating to
nonrecognition of gain) is amended by striking ``60-day'' and
inserting ``180-day''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1045(b)(2) is amended by
striking ``60-day'' and inserting ``180-day''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Exclusion.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to stock issued after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Rollover.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall
apply to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. DEFERRED PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESSES.

(a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 62 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to extensions of time for
payment of tax) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``SEC. 6168. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF TAX FOR CERTAIN
SMALL BUSINESSES.

``(a) In General.--An eligible small business may elect to
pay the tax imposed by chapter 1 in 4 equal installments (6
equal installments in the case of a qualified manufacturer).
``(b) Limitation.--The maximum amount of tax which may be
paid in installments under this section for any taxable year
shall not exceed whichever of the following is the least:
``(1) The tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year.
``(2) The amount contributed by the taxpayer into a BRIDGE
Account during such year.
``(3) The excess of--
``(A) $250,000 ($400,000 in the case of a qualified
manufacturer), over
``(B) the aggregate amount of tax for which an election
under this section was made by the taxpayer (or any
predecessor) for all prior taxable years.
``(c) Definitions.--For proposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible small business.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible small business'
means, with respect to any taxable year, any person if--
``(i) such person meets the active business requirements of
section 1202(e) throughout such taxable year,
``(ii) the taxpayer has gross receipts of $10,000,000 or
less for the taxable year,
``(iii) the gross receipts of the taxpayer for such taxable
year are at least 10 percent greater than the average annual
gross receipts of the taxpayer (or any predecessor) for the 2
prior taxable years, and
``(iv) the taxpayer uses an accrual method of accounting.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) shall apply for
purposes of this subsection.
``(2) Qualified manufacturer.--The term `qualified
manufacturer' means an eligible small business substantially
all of the business activities of which are in connection
with manufacturing (as determined under the North American
Industrial Classification System).
``(d) Date for Payment of Installments; Time for Payment of
Interest.--
``(1) Date for payment of installments.--
``(A) In general.--If an election is made under this
section for any taxable year, the first installment shall be
paid on or before the due date for such installment and each
succeeding installment shall be paid on or before the date
which is 1 year after the date prescribed by this paragraph
for payment of the preceding installment.
``(B) Due date for first installment.--The due date for the
first installment for a taxable year shall be whichever of
the following is the earliest:
``(i) The date selected by the taxpayer.
``(ii) The date which is 2 years after the date prescribed
by section 6151(a) for payment of the tax for such taxable
year.
``(2) Time for payment of interest.--If the time for
payment of any amount of tax has been extended under this
section--
``(A) Interest for period before due date of first
installment.--Interest payable under section 6601 on any
unpaid portion of such amount attributable to the period
before the due date for the first installment shall be paid
annually.
``(B) Interest during installment period.--Interest payable
under section 6601 on any unpaid portion of such amount
attributable to any period after such period shall be paid at
the same time as, and as a part of, each installment payment
of the tax.
``(C) Interest in the case of certain deficiencies.--In the
case of a deficiency to which subsection (e)(3) applies for a
taxable year which is assessed after the due date for the
first installment for such year, interest attributable to the
period before such due date, and interest assigned under
subparagraph (B) to any installment the date for payment of
which has arrived on or before the date of the assessment of
the deficiency, shall be paid upon notice and demand from the
Secretary.
``(e) Special Rules.--
``(1) Application of limitation to partners and s
corporation shareholders.--
``(A) In general.--In applying this section to a
partnership which is an eligible small business--
``(i) the election under subsection (a) shall be made by
the partnership,
``(ii) the amount referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall be
the sum of each partner's tax which is attributable to items
of the partnership and assuming the highest marginal rate
under section 1, and
``(iii) the partnership shall be treated as the taxpayer
referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b).

[[Page S15076]]

``(B) Overall limitation also applied at partner level.--In
the case of a partner in a partnership, the limitation under
subsection (b)(3) shall be applied at the partnership and
partner levels.
``(C) Similar rules for s corporations.--Rules similar to
the rules of subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to
shareholders in an S corporation.
``(2) Acceleration of payment in certain cases.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) the taxpayer ceases to meet the requirement of
subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), or
``(ii) there is an ownership change with respect to the
taxpayer,

then the extension of time for payment of tax provided in
subsection (a) shall cease to apply, and the unpaid portion
of the tax payable in installments shall be paid on or before
the due date for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter
1 for the first taxable year following such cessation.
``(B) Ownership change.--For purposes of subparagraph, in
the case of a corporation, the term `ownership change' has
the meaning given to such term by section 382. Rules similar
to the rules applicable under the preceding sentence shall
apply to a partnership.
``(3) Proration of deficiency to installments.--Rules
similar to the rules of section 6166(e) shall apply for
purposes of this section.
``(f) BRIDGE Account.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `BRIDGE Account' means a trust
created or organized in the United States for the exclusive
benefit of an eligible small business, but only if the
written governing instrument creating the trust meets the
following requirements:
``(A) No contribution will be accepted for any taxable year
in excess of the amount allowed as a deferral under
subsection (b) for such year.
``(B) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n))
or another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the manner in which such person will
administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements
of this section.
``(C) The assets of the trust consist entirely of cash or
of obligations which have adequate stated interest (as
defined in section 1274(c)(2)) and which pay such interest
not less often than annually.
``(D) The assets of the trust will not be commingled with
other property except in a common trust fund or common
investment fund.
``(E) Amounts in the trust may be used only--
``(i) as security for a loan to the business or for
repayment of such loan, or
``(ii) to pay the installments under this section.
``(2) Account taxed as grantor trust.--The grantor of a
BRIDGE Account shall be treated for purposes of this title as
the owner of such Account and shall be subject to tax thereon
in accordance with subpart E of part I of subchapter J of
this chapter (relating to grantors and others treated as
substantial owners).
``(3) Time when payments deemed made.--For purposes of this
section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment to
a BRIDGE Account on the last day of a taxable year if such
payment is made on account of such taxable year and is made
within 3\1/2\ months after the close of such taxable year.
``(g) Reports.--The Secretary may require such reporting as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this
section.
``(h) Application of Section.--This section shall apply to
taxes imposed for taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003, and before January 1, 2008.''.
(b) Priority of Lender.--Subsection (b) of section 6323 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to protection for
certain interests even though notice filed) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Loans secured by bridge accounts.--With respect to a
BRIDGE account (as defined in section 6168(f)) with any bank
(as defined in section 408(n)), to the extent of any loan
made by such bank without actual notice or knowledge of the
existence of such lien, as against such bank, if such loan is
secured by such account.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter B of chapter 62 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 6168. Extension of time for payment of tax for certain small
businesses.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003.
(e) Study by General Accounting Office.--
(1) Study.--In consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
undertake a study to evaluate the applicability (including
administrative aspects) and impact of the amendments made by
section 4 of the Manufacturing Job Production Act of 2003,
including how it affects the capital funding needs of
businesses under the Act and number of businesses benefiting.
(2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2007, the Comptroller
General shall transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate a written report presenting the results of the
study conducted pursuant to this subsection, together with
such recommendations for legislative or administrative
changes as the Comptroller General determines are
appropriate.

SEC. 5. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation)
is amended by striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of
taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2006)'' and
inserting ``$100,000''.
(b) Increase in Qualifying Investment at Which Phaseout
Begins.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reduction in limitation) is
amended by striking ``$200,000 ($400,000 in the case of
taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2006)'' and
inserting ``$400,000''.
(c) Off-the-Shelf Computer Software.--Paragraph (1) of
section 179(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining
section 179 property) is amended by striking ``, and which is
placed in service in a taxable year beginning after 2002 and
before 2006''.
(d) Inflation Adjustment.--Subparagraph (A) of section
179(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
inflation adjustments) is amended by striking ``and before
2006''.
(e) Revocation of Election.--Paragraph (2) of section
179(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking the last sentence.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003.

S. 1886

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Manufacturing Assistance, Development, and Education in
America Act'' or the ``MADE in America Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of small manufacturer.

TITLE I--NATIONAL OFFICE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL MANUFACTURERS

Sec. 101. Establishment of office.

TITLE II--INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF MANUFACTURING

Sec. 201. Increased access to capital.
Sec. 202. Loans and investments in small manufacturers.

TITLE III--EXPORT ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS

Sec. 301. Small Business Foreign Patent Protection Grant Pilot Program.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SMALL MANUFACTURER.

(a) Small Business Act.--Section 3(j) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(j)) is amended by striking ``For the
purposes of section 7(b)(2) of this Act, the term'' and
inserting ``As used in this Act--
``(1) the term `small manufacturer' means a small business
concern (as defined in subsection (a))--
``(A) whose primary business is classified in sector 31,
32, or 33 of the North American Industrial Classification
System; and
``(B) whose production facilities are all located in the
United States; and
``(2) the term''.
(b) Small Business Investment Act of 1958.--Section 103 of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (16), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (17), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(18) the term `small manufacturer' means a small business
concern (as defined in section 3(a) of the Small Business
Act)--
``(A) whose primary business is classified in sector 31,
32, or 33 of the North American Industrial Classification
System; and
``(B) whose production facilities are all located in the
United States.''.

TITLE I--NATIONAL OFFICE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL MANUFACTURERS

SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

(a) In General.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 36 as section 37; and
(2) by inserting after section 35 the following:

``SEC. 36. NATIONAL OFFICE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL
MANUFACTURERS.

``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Administration the National Office for the Development of
Small Manufacturers (referred to in this section as the
`Office') to cultivate and develop small manufacturers
through a variety of means.
``(b) Associate Administrator for Small Manufacturing.--
``(1) Appointment.--The Office shall be administered by the
Associate Administrator for Small Manufacturing (referred to
in this section as the `Associate Administrator'), who shall
be appointed under section 4(b)(1).
``(2) Responsibilities.--In administering the Office, the
Associate Administrator, who shall be an appointee in the
Senior Executive Service, shall--
``(A) oversee and coordinate the formulation, execution,
and promotion of policies and programs of the Administration
that provide assistance to small manufacturers,

[[Page S15077]]

including the creation of the Manufacturing Corps;
``(B) direct Federal agencies and departments to provide
information regarding their manufacturing resources and
programs, and to take appropriate action to enhance
assistance to small manufacturers;
``(C) coordinate the activities, and delivery of such
activities, of Federal agencies and departments relating to
manufacturing;
``(D) coordinate the activities of Federal agencies with
manufacturing activities of the States; and
``(E) consult with and report to the Administrator
regarding the fulfillment of responsibilities under this
subsection.
``(c) Manufacturing Corps.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a
program within the Office to be known as the Manufacturing
Corps to focus on the education and training of the existing
and potential workforce of small manufacturers.
``(2) Administration.--The Manufacturing Corps shall be
administered by the Associate Administrator.
``(3) Responsibilities.--The Manufacturing Corps shall
address the pressing need for more skilled workers by
promoting vocational, technical, and academic education
relating to the manufacturing sector.
``(4) Curriculum development.--
``(A) Outreach.--The Associate Administrator shall
regularly seek input from small manufacturers regarding the
human capital needs of the manufacturing industry.
``(B) Cooperation.--The input received under subparagraph
(A) shall be used to develop, and annually update, a detailed
manufacturing training curriculum for each State through the
cooperative effort of small manufacturers and educational
institutions.
``(d) Manufacturing Training Block Grants.--
``(1) Grants authorized.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Associate Administrator, shall award
block grants to States, which shall allocate grant funds to
individuals and eligible entities to develop and implement
manufacturing training programs.
``(2) Funding formula.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the amount
of a formula grant received by a State under this subsection
shall be equal to an amount determined in accordance with the
following formula:
``(i) The annual amount made available under subsection (i)
for the Manufacturer Corps Program shall be divided on a pro
rata basis, based on the percentage of the population of each
State, as compared to the population of the United States.
``(ii) If the pro rata amount calculated under clause (i)
for any State is less than the minimum funding level under
subparagraph (C), the Administration shall determine the
aggregate amount necessary to achieve that minimum funding
level for each such State.
``(iii) The aggregate amount calculated under clause (ii)
shall be deducted from the amount calculated under clause (i)
for States eligible to receive more than the minimum funding
level. The deductions shall be made on a pro rata basis,
based on the population of each such State, as compared to
the total population of all such States.
``(iv) The aggregate amount deducted under clause (iii)
shall be added to the grants of those States that are not
eligible to receive more than the minimum funding level in
order to achieve the minimum funding level for each such
State, except that the eligible amount of a grant to any
State shall not be reduced to an amount below the minimum
funding level.
``(B) Grant determination.--The amount of a grant that a
State is eligible to apply for under this subsection shall be
the amount determined under subparagraph (A), subject to any
modifications required under subparagraph (C), and shall be
based on the amount available for the fiscal year in which
performance of the grant commences, but not including amounts
distributed in accordance with subparagraph (D). The amount
of a grant received by a State under any provision of this
subparagraph shall not exceed the amount of matching funds
from sources other than the Federal Government, as required
under paragraph (7).
``(C) Minimum funding level.--Each State shall receive a
block grant under this subsection in an amount not less
than--
``(i) $200,000 for any fiscal year in which the total
amount appropriated for grants under this subsection is not
more than $25,000,000;
``(ii) $300,000 for any fiscal year in which the total
amount appropriated for grants under this subsection is more
than $25,000,000, but not more than $50,000,000;
``(iii) $400,000 for any fiscal year in which the total
amount appropriated for grants under this subsection is more
than $50,000,000, but not more than $75,000,000; and
``(iv) $500,000 for any fiscal year in which the total
amount appropriated for grants under this subsection is more
than $75,000,000.
``(D) Distributions.--Subject to subparagraph (C), if any
State does not apply for, or use, its full funding
eligibility for a fiscal year, the Administration shall
distribute the remaining funds as supplemental grants to any
State, as the Administration determines, in its discretion,
to be appropriate.
``(3) Eligible entities.--Secondary, vocational, and
postsecondary schools that receive public funding,
manufacturing extension partnerships, small business
development centers, women's business centers, and similar
nonprofit organizations shall be eligible to receive grant
funds from States under this subsection.
``(4) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Grants awarded under this section may
only be used to develop and implement vocational, technical,
or academic training programs to educate and enhance the
skills of--
``(i) individuals working in the field of manufacturing;
and
``(ii) students who are interested in working in the field
of manufacturing.
``(B) Secondary schools.--Secondary schools may use funds
received under this subsection to develop and conduct
vocational and technology training to high school students to
prepare students who are not planning to attend college
immediately after graduation for employment in the field of
manufacturing. Schools are encouraged to partner with small
manufacturers to address their skilled worker needs and to
provide employment opportunities for students after
graduation.
``(C) Continuing education.--Manufacturing extension
partnerships, small business development centers, women's
business centers, and similar nonprofit organizations may use
funds received under this subsection to assist existing
manufacturing workers to improve their skills and advance
their technical abilities.
``(5) Student loan repayment program.--
``(A) In general.--States may use grant funds received
under this subsection to encourage recent college graduates
to work for a small manufacturer by repaying a portion of
their student loans during the period of such employment.
``(B) Maximum amounts.--A State may make payments of not
more than $300 per month toward the student loan principal
and interest of any college graduate who has committed to
work for a small manufacturer for a 4-year period beginning
not sooner than the date on which the graduate submits an
application under paragraph (6)(B). Aggregate payments to any
individual under this paragraph may not exceed $25,000.
``(C) Renewal.--After the initial 4-year term established
under subparagraph (B) has been completed, the State may
annually renew its commitment under subparagraph (B) for
successive 1-year periods if the college graduate commits to
continue working for the small manufacturer.
``(D) Maximum compensation.--Individuals whose gross annual
compensation (including bonuses) from the small manufacturer
is greater than $60,000 are ineligible to participate in the
student loan repayment program authorized by this paragraph.
``(6) Application.--
``(A) Institutional applicants.--Any eligible entity
desiring funding under this subsection shall submit a
proposal to the appropriate representative of the State in
which it is located.
``(B) Individual applicants.--Any college graduate desiring
to participate in the student loan repayment program
authorized under paragraph (5) shall submit an application to
the appropriate representative of the State in which the
graduate resides in such form as such representative may
reasonably require.
``(C) Criteria.--States may determine which applicants
receive funding under this subsection based upon specific
needs and available resources.
``(7) Matching requirement.--
``(A) Years 1 and 2.--During each of the first and second
years of the grant program established under this subsection,
each State receiving a block grant under this subsection
shall provide $1 in non-Federal funding for each $3 received
in Federal funding under this section.
``(B) Years 3 and 4.--During each of the third and fourth
years of the grant program established under this subsection,
each State receiving a block grant under this subsection
shall provide $1 in non-Federal funding for each $2 received
in Federal funding under this section.
``(C) Years 5 through 10.--During each of the fifth through
tenth years of the grant program established under this
subsection, each State receiving a block grant under this
subsection shall provide $1 in non-Federal funding for each
$1 received in Federal funding under this section.
``(8) State reporting requirement.--Each State receiving a
grant under this subsection shall provide sufficient
information to the Administration about the distribution of
grant funds to complete the report required under subsection
(e).
``(9) Defined term.--As used in this subsection, the term
`State' has the meaning given the term in section 34(a).
``(e) BusinessLINC Manufacturing.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Administrator may make grants to and enter into cooperative
agreements with any coalition of private entities, public
entities, or any combination of private and public entities--
``(A) to expand business-to-business relationships between
large and small manufacturers; and
``(B) to provide large and small manufacturers, directly or
indirectly, with online information and a database of
companies that are interested in mentor-protege programs or
community-based, statewide, or local business development
programs.
``(2) Matching requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the Administrator may make a grant to a coalition under
paragraph (1) only if the coalition provides for activities
described in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) an

[[Page S15078]]

amount, either in kind or in cash, equal to the grant amount.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
$2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
which shall remain available until expended.
``(f) Website for Small Manufacturers.--The Associate
Administrator shall establish a website that contains
information for small manufacturers regarding--
``(1) entrepreneurial development assistance;
``(2) access to capital;
``(3) specific outreach programs;
``(4) contracting opportunities; and
``(5) research and development projects.
``(g) Mentor-Protege Program.--The Associate Administrator
shall establish a mentor-protege program that pairs small
manufacturers with larger, more experienced manufacturers to
provide guidance regarding--
``(1) management practices;
``(2) domestic and foreign marketing;
``(3) efficiency improvements; and
``(4) product development.
``(h) Report.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Associate Administrator, shall submit an annual report on
the implementation of this section to the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee
on Small Business of the House of Representatives.
``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include, for the reporting period--
``(A) the number of persons assisted under this section,
categorized by type of assistance received;
``(B) the number of persons described under subparagraph
(A) who had previously received assistance under this
section;
``(C) the number of persons described in subparagraph (A)
who are working in the manufacturing sector;
``(D) the number and amount of grants awarded under this
section, categorized by type of recipient;
``(E) the number of small manufacturers receiving grant
funds under this section; and
``(F) the net increase in manufacturing jobs available at
the small manufacturers described in subparagraph (E);
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $275,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2014 to carry out this subsections
(c) and (d).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4(b)(1) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 633(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``five Associate Administrators'' and
inserting ``6 Associate Administrators''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``One of the
Associate Administrators shall be the Associate Administrator
for Small Manufacturing, who shall administer the National
Office for the Development of Small Manufacturers established
under section 36.''.

TITLE II--INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF MANUFACTURING

SEC. 201. INCREASED ACCESS TO CAPITAL.

(a) Working Capital Loans.--Section 7(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``Total amount of loans.--'' before ``No
loan'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) if the total amount outstanding and committed (by
participation or otherwise) to the borrower under section
7(a) would exceed $1,000,000 (or if the gross loan amount
would exceed $2,000,000), except as provided in subparagraphs
(B) and (D) and paragraph (14), plus an amount not to exceed
the maximum amount of a development company financing under
title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15
U.S.C. 695 et seq.), and the Administration shall report to
Congress in its annual budget request and performance plan on
the number of small business concerns that have financings
under this subsection and under title V of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, and the total amount and general
performance of such financings;'';
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``$1,250,000'' and inserting
``$1,300,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to a small manufacturer if the total amount
outstanding and committed to the borrower from the business
loan and investment fund established by this Act would exceed
$2,000,000 (or if the gross loan amount would exceed
$4,000,000).''; and
(2) in paragraph (14), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) The total amount of financings under this paragraph
that are outstanding and committed (by participation or
otherwise) to the borrower from the business loan and
investment fund established under this Act may not exceed
$1,300,000 and the gross loan amount under this paragraph may
not exceed $2,600,000.''.
(b) Disaster Loans.--Section 7(b)(3) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting after
subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) Limitation on sales of loans.--The Administration may
not sell a loan under this subsection as part of an asset
sale.
``(H) Small manufacturers.--
``(i) Maximum loan amount.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(E), the Administration may make a disaster loan to a small
manufacturer under this paragraph, either directly or in
cooperation with banks or other lending institutions through
agreements to participate on an immediate or deferred basis,
in an amount greater than $1,500,000, if the total amount
outstanding and committed to the borrower does not exceed
$5,000,000.
``(ii) Refinancing disaster loans.--Any loan made to a
small manufacturer under this subparagraph that was
outstanding on the date of the disaster may be refinanced by
a small manufacturer that is also eligible to receive a loan
under this subsection. The refinanced amount shall be
considered to be part of the new loan for purposes of this
subsection and shall be in addition to any other loan
eligibility for that small manufacturer under this Act and
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. With respect to a
refinancing under this clause, payments of principal shall be
deferred, and interest shall not accrue during the 6-month
period following the date of refinancing.
``(iii) Refinancing business debt.--
``(I) In general.--Any business debt of a small
manufacturer that was outstanding on the date of the disaster
may be refinanced by the small manufacturer if it is also
eligible to receive a loan under this subsection. With
respect to a refinancing under this clause, payments of
principal shall be deferred, and interest shall not accrue
during the 6-month period following the date of refinancing.
``(II) Resumption of payments.--At the end of the 6-month
period described in subclause (I), the payment of periodic
installments of principal and interest shall be required with
respect to such loan, in the same manner and subject to the
same terms and conditions as would otherwise be applicable to
any other loan made under this subsection.
``(iv) Authority to increase or waive size standards and
size regulations.--
``(I) In general.--At the discretion of the Administrator,
the Administrator may increase or waive otherwise applicable
size standards or size regulations with respect to businesses
applying for disaster loans under this subparagraph.
``(II) Exemption from administrative procedures.--The
provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5, of title 5, United
States Code, shall not apply to any increase or waiver by the
Administrator under subclause (I).''.
(c) Microloans.--Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(m)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) to assist small manufacturers.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by inserting ``(or $50,000 if
the borrower is a small manufacturer)'' after ``$35,000'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)(E)--
(A) by striking ``In no case shall an intermediary'' and
inserting ``An intermediary may not''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, unless the borrower is a small manufacturer.
An intermediary may not make a loan to a small manufacturer
under this section of more than $50,000, or have outstanding
or committed to any small manufacturer more than $50,000''.

SEC. 202. LOANS AND INVESTMENTS IN SMALL MANUFACTURERS.

(a) Manufacturing Loans.--
(1) Job creation or retention standards.--Section 501 of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``increasing the
productive capacity of small manufacturers,'' after ``area'';
and
(B) by striking the undesignated paragraph at the end and
inserting the following:
``(e) Job Creation or Retention.--A project being funded by
the debenture is deemed to satisfy the job creation or
retention requirement under subsection (d)(1) if the project
creates or retains--
``(1) 1 job opportunity for every $50,000 guaranteed by the
Administration; or
``(2) in the case of a manufacturing project, 1 job
opportunity for every $100,000 guaranteed by the
Administration.''.
(2) Maximum amount.--Section 502(2) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(2)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Maximum amount.--Loans made by the Administration
under this section shall be limited to--
``(A) $1,000,000 for each small business concern if the
loan proceeds will not be directed toward a goal or project
described in subparagraph (B) or (C);
``(B) $1,300,000 for each small business concern if the
loan proceeds will be directed toward 1 or more of the public
policy goals described under section 501(d)(3); and
``(C) $4,000,000 for each small business concern if the
loan proceeds will be directed toward manufacturing
projects.''.
(3) Rule of construction.--Section 502 of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Rule of construction.--A loan under this section
shall not be construed to be limited by any loan guaranteed
by the Administration under subsection (a) or (b) of section

[[Page S15079]]

7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a) and (b)).''.
(b) Small Business Investment Companies.--Section 303(b)(4)
of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C.
683(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(as determined by
the Administrator)'' and all that follows and inserting ``may
not exceed $115,000,000.''; and
(2) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Exceptions.--
``(i) Majority of financings in small manufacturers.--If
the licensee certifies in writing that not less than 50
percent of the aggregate dollar amount of its financings are
to small manufacturers--

``(I) the maximum amount of outstanding leverage issued to
any 1 company shall be $150,000,000; and
``(II) the maximum amount of outstanding leverage issued to
companies that are under common control shall be
$185,000,000.

``(ii) Companies under common control.--The Administrator
may, on a case-by-case basis--

``(I) approve an amount of leverage that exceeds the amount
described in clause (i) and subparagraph (A) for companies
under common control; and
``(II) impose such additional terms and conditions as the
Administrator determines to be appropriate to minimize the
risk of loss to the Administration in the event of
default.''.

(c) New Market Venture Capital Program.--
(1) Purposes.--Section 352 of the Small Business Investment
Act (15 U.S.C. 689a) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and small
manufacturers'' after ``enterprises''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and small
manufacturers'' after ``enterprises''.
(2) Maximum guarantee for small manufacturers.--Section
355(d)(1) of the Small Business Investment Act (15 U.S.C.
689d(d)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``does not exceed 150 percent'' and
inserting ``does not exceed--
``(A) 150 percent''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and
``(B) 200 percent of the private capital of the company, if
the New Markets Venture Capital company certifies in writing
that not less than 50 percent of its investments are in small
manufacturers.''.
(d) Authorization of Additional Appropriations.--Section
368 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C.
689q) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Authorization of Additional Appropriations.--In
addition to the authorizations under subsection (a), there
are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years
2005 and 2006, to remain available until expended, the
following sums:
``(1) Such subsidy budget authority as may be necessary to
guarantee $75,000,000 of debentures under this part.
``(2) $15,000,000 to make grants under this part.''.

TITLE III--EXPORT ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS

SEC. 301. SMALL BUSINESS FOREIGN PATENT PROTECTION GRANT
PILOT PROGRAM.

Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(x) Small Business Foreign Patent Protection Grant Pilot
Program.--
``(1) Grants authorized.--The Administrator shall make
grants from the Fund established under paragraph (5) for the
purpose of assisting small business concerns in seeking
foreign patent protection in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Number and amount of grants.--
``(A) Maximum amount.--The amount of a grant made to any
small business concern under this subsection may not exceed
$25,000, and no awardee may receive more than 1 grant under
this subsection.
``(B) Reserved amounts.--
``(i) In general.--Not less than \1/2\ of all amounts
awarded under this section shall be reserved for recipients
of awards under the Small Business Innovation Research
Program or the Small Business Technology Transfer Program.
``(ii) Exception.--Any amount reserved for grants under
clause (i) for any fiscal year that has not been obligated by
July 1st of such fiscal year, may be used for grants under
this subsection to any small business concern.
``(3) Grant purposes.--Grant amounts awarded under this
subsection shall be used by grantees to underwrite costs
associated with initial foreign patent applications for
technologies or products developed by small business
concerns, and for which an application for United States
patent protection has already been filed.
``(4) Considerations.--In awarding grants under this
subsection, the Director of the Office of Technology shall
consider--
``(A) the size and financial need of the applicant;
``(B) the potential foreign market for the technology;
``(C) the timeframes for filing foreign patent
applications; and
``(D) such other factors as the Administrator deems
relevant.
``(5) Establishment of revolving fund.--There is
established in the Treasury of the United States a revolving
fund, which shall be--
``(A) known as the `Small Business Foreign Patent
Protection Grant Fund' (referred to in this subsection as the
`Fund');
``(B) administered by the Office of Technology of the
Administration, in consultation with the National Office for
Development of Small Manufacturers; and
``(C) used solely to fund grants under this subsection and
to pay the costs to the Administration of administering those
grants.
``(6) Royalty fees.--
``(A) In general.--Each recipient of a grant under this
subsection shall pay a fee to the Administration, to be
deposited into the Fund, based on the export sales receipts
or licensing fees, if any, from the product or technology
that is the subject of the foreign patent petition.
``(B) Annual installments based on receipts.--The fee
required under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall be paid to the Administration in annual
installments, based on the export sales receipts or licensing
fees described in subparagraph (A) that are collected by the
grant recipient in that calendar year;
``(ii) shall not be required to be paid in any calendar
year in which no export sales receipts or licensing fees
described in subparagraph (A) are collected by the grant
recipient; and
``(iii) shall not exceed, in total, the lesser of--

``(I) 5 percent of the total export sales receipts and
licensing fees referred to in subparagraph (A); or
``(II) 4 times the amount of the grant received.

``(7) Administrative provisions.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator shall--
``(A) issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out
this subsection; and
``(B) establish appropriate application and other
administrative procedures, as the Administrator deems
necessary.
``(8) Report.--The Administrator shall, not later than
January 31, 2008, submit a report to Congress on the grants
authorized by this subsection, which report shall include,
categorized by year and total--
``(A) the number of grant recipients under this subsection
since the date of enactment of this subsection;
``(B) the number and amount of sales or licensing fees of
such grant recipients that have made foreign sales (or
granted licenses to make foreign sales) and a brief
description of each technology or product;
``(C) the number of technologies or products developed
under the Small Business Innovation Research Program or the
Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and the amounts
of such sales (or licenses);
``(D) the total amount of fees paid into the Fund by
recipients of grants under this subsection in accordance with
paragraph (6);
``(E) recommendations for any adjustment in the percentages
specified in paragraph (6)(B)(iii)(I) or the amount specified
in paragraph (6)(B)(iii)(II) necessary to reduce to zero the
cost to the Administration of making grants under this
subsection;
``(F) any recommendations regarding the grant amount; and
``(G) any recommendations of the Administrator regarding
improvements to the programs, whether authorization for
grants under this subsection should be extended, and any
necessary legislation related to such an extension.
``(9) Staffing.--The Administrator shall ensure that there
are sufficient staff in the Office of Technology, including
not fewer than 2 full-time employees, to carry out the grant
program established under this subsection.
``(10) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Fund, to remain
available until expended--
``(A) $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2005;
``(B) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(C) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(D) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and
2009.''.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Graham of South
Carolina, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Collins, Mr. Graham of Florida, and
Mr. Bayh):
S. 1888. A bill to half Saudi support for institutions that fund,
train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism,
and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist
incidents; to the committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2003

Cosponsors: Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Wyden, Collins, Bob
Graham, Bayh.

Content

Sanctions. Unless the President makes a certification that
Saudi Arabia is making a

[[Page S15080]]

maximum effort to fight terrorism (details below), he shall
take the following actions:
Prohibit export to Saudi Arabia of any defense articles or
services listed on the Arms Export Control Act. Prohibit
export to Saudi Arabia of any items listed on the Commerce
Control List (these are materials that have both economic and
military uses). Restrict travel of Saudi diplomats to a 25-
radius of the city in which their offices are located (would
apply to the Saudi Embassy in DC, the Saudi UN mission in New
York, and the Saudi Consulates in Houston and Los Angeles).
Presidential Certification. The President is not required
to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia if he certifies that
Saudi Arabia is:
Fully cooperating with the United States in investigating
and preventing terrorist attacks; Has permanently closed all
Saudi-based terror organizations; Has ended any funding or
other support by the Government of Saudi Arabia for any
offshore terror organizations.
Presidential Waiver. Even it he has not made the
certification, the President may waive the application of the
sanctions if he determines that it is in the national
security interest of the United States to do so.

Definitions

Offshore Terror Organizations are defined as ``charities,
schools, and any other organization or institution outside of
Saudi Arabia that train, incite, encourage, or in any other
way aid and abet terrorism anywhere in the world.'' Thus a
religious school or madrassah that incites its students to
terror would be defined as a terrorist organization for
purposes of this bill.
Saudi-Based Terror Organizations are the same types of
organizations located within the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

S. 1888

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 ``Saudi Arabia Accountability
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)
mandates that all states ``refrain from providing any form of
support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved
in terrorist acts'', take ``the necessary steps to prevent
the commission of terrorist acts'', and ``deny safe haven to
those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts''.
(2) The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in an
October 2002 report on terrorist financing that ``[f]or
years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have
been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda, and for
years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this
problem''.
(3) The Middle East Media Research Institute concluded in a
July 3, 2003, report on Saudi support for Palestinian
terrorists that ``for decades, the royal family of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the main financial supporter
of Palestinian groups fighting Israel''. The report notes
specifically that Saudi-sponsored organizations have funneled
over $4,000,000,000 to finance the Palestinian intifada that
began in September 2000.
(4) Much of this Saudi money has been directed to Hamas and
to the families of suicide bombers, directly funding and
rewarding suicide bombers. In December 2000, former
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas wrote to the Saudis
to complain about their support for Hamas.
(5) The New York Times, citing United States and Israeli
sources, reported on September 17, 2003, that at least 50
percent of the current operating budget of Hamas comes from
``people in Saudi Arabia''.
(6) Many Saudi-funded religious institutions and the
literature they distribute teach a message of hate and
intolerance that provides an ideological basis for anti-
Western terrorism. The effects of these teachings are
evidenced by the fact that Osama bin Laden himself and 15 of
the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi citizens.
(7) After the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers housing
complex at Dahran, Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 United
States Air Force personnel and wounded approximately 400
people, the Government of Saudi Arabia refused to allow
United States officials to question individuals held in
detention by the Saudis in connection with the attack.
(8) During an October 2002 hearing on financing of
terrorism before the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate, the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the Department
of the Treasury testified that the Government of Saudi Arabia
had taken only ``baby steps'' toward stemming the financing
of terrorist activities.
(9) During a July 2003 hearing on terrorism before the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, David
Aufhauser, General Counsel of the Treasury Department, stated
that Saudi Arabia is, in many cases, the ``epicenter'' of
financing for terrorism.
(10) A joint committee of the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a
report on July 24, 2003, that quotes various United States
Government personnel who complained that the Saudis refused
to cooperate in the investigation of Osama bin Laden and his
network both before and after the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks.
(11) There are indications that, since the May 12, 2003,
suicide bombings in Riyadh, the Government of Saudi Arabia is
making a more serious effort to combat terrorism.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) it is imperative that the Government of Saudi Arabia
immediately and unconditionally--
(A) provide complete, unrestricted, and unobstructed
cooperation to the United States, including the unsolicited
sharing of relevant intelligence in a consistent and timely
fashion, in the investigation of groups and individuals that
are suspected of financing, supporting, plotting, or
committing an act of terror against United States citizens
anywhere in the world, including within the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia;
(B) permanently close all charities, schools, or other
organizations or institutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid
and abet terrorism anywhere in the world (hereafter in this
Act referred to as ``Saudi-based terror organizations''),
including by means of providing support for the families of
individuals who have committed acts of terrorism;
(C) end funding or other support by the Government of Saudi
Arabia for charities, schools, and any other organizations or
institutions outside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that train,
incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism
anywhere in the world (hereafter in this Act referred to as
``offshore terror organizations''), including by means of
providing support for the families of individuals who have
committed acts of terrorism; and
(D) block all funding from private Saudi citizens and
entities to any Saudi-based terror organization or offshore
terrorism organization; and
(2) the President, in deciding whether to make the
certification under section 4, should judge whether the
Government of Saudi Arabia has continued and sufficiently
expanded the efforts to combat terrorism that it redoubled
after the May 12, 2003, bombing in Riyadh.

SEC. 4. SANCTIONS.

(a) Restrictions on Exports and Diplomatic Travel.--Unless
the President makes the certification described in subsection
(c), the President shall take the following actions:
(1) Prohibit the export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and
prohibit the issuance of a license for the export to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, of--
(A) any defense articles or defense services on the United
States Munitions List under section 38 of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) for which special export
controls are warranted under such Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et
seq.); and
(B) any item identified on the Commerce Control List
maintained under part 774 of title 15, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) Restrict travel of Saudi diplomats assigned to
Washington, District of Columbia, New York, New York, the
Saudi Consulate General in Houston, or the Saudi Consulate in
Los Angeles to a 25-mile radius of Washington, District of
Columbia, New York, New York, the Saudi Consulate General in
Houston, or the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, respectively.
(b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of
subsection (a) if the President--
(1) determines that it is in the national security interest
of the United States to do so; and
(2) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a
report that contains the reasons for such determination.
(c) Certification.--The President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a certification of any
determination made by the President after the date of the
enactment of this Act that the Government of Saudi Arabia--
(1) is fully cooperating with the United States in
investigating and preventing terrorist attacks;
(2) has permanently closed all Saudi-based terror
organizations;
(3) has ended any funding or other support by the
Government of Saudi Arabia for any offshore terror
organization; and
(4) has exercised maximum efforts to block all funding from
private Saudi citizens and entities to offshore terrorist
organizations.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

(a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 12 months
thereafter until the President makes the certification
described in section 4(c), the Secretary of State shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on the progress made by the Government of Saudi Arabia toward
meeting the conditions described in paragraphs (1) through
(4) of section 4(c).
(b) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall
be in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 6. DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional
committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.

____________________