[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 29 (Tuesday, March 9, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2441-S2448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORZINE:
S. 2177. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to change the
effective date for paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit
Plan from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2004; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military
Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, legislation to eliminate a major
inequity that has existed for several years among certain year-groups
of military retirees already enrolled in the Survivors' Benefit Plan.
In the interest of a strong national defense, it is critical that we
keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military. This
applies both while military members are serving, and as they move
beyond their working years. Our military retirees and their families
have made significant sacrifices in the defense of their country. They
deserve benefits commensurate with those sacrifices.
In 1972, Congress created the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP), giving
career military members the option of taking less retirement pay in
their own lifetime in return for the continuation of that pay to the
surviving spouse, in the event the retiree pre-deceased his or her
spouse.
SBP was a wise and important decision by the Congress; hundreds of
thousands of military members have enrolled in SBP since 1972, and the
program has given much-deserved security and peace of mind to those
spouses who, along with military members, share the burdens of a
military career.
Congress expanded the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) in 1999, by
creating the ``Paid-Up Provision.'' Under that provision, retirees who
are at least seventy years old and have already been paying into SBP
for at least thirty years are considered ``paid up'' and do not have to
continue paying in to receive benefits.
This change provides a modest but frequently important boost to
retirees' income at a stage in their lives, in their 70's, when they
may be less able to supplement their retirement income from other
employment.
However, there is a major caveat, and a significant inequity here.
The ``Paid-Up Provision'', under the 1999 legislation, does not take
effect until October 2008. As a result, those who enrolled before 1978
will continue under the current law to have to pay in as much as six
years longer than enrollees from 1978 or after.
The SBP program was created in 1972. An effective date of 2008 for
the SBP's ``Paid-Up Provision'' means that those who enrolled in the
first six years of the program, i.e., between 1972 and 1977, must, in
order to get the same retirement benefits, pay in longer, as much as
six years longer, than those who enrolled in 1978 or later.
In other words, those who signed up before 1978 get the same benefits
but have to pay a much higher price. This arrangement is unfair on its
face and should be corrected.
My bill, the Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004, simply takes
the ``Paid-Up Provision''--already established by Congress in 1999, and
moves its effective date ahead four years, from October 1, 2008 to
October 1, 2004. That is the only change it makes.
[[Page S2442]]
This bill, if approved, would benefit some ninety-two thousand
military retirees nationwide, those who enrolled in SBP between 1974
and 1977. The Military Officers Association of America has estimated
that the cost would be $2.7 billion over ten years.
Under my bill, ninety-two thousand military retirees participating in
the SBP program, from every State and congressional district, will no
longer be forced to pay more for their retirement than military
retirees who enrolled in SBP in 1978 or later. This is only fair--the
benefits for which these 92,000 are paying are identical, and their
service was just as worthy.
The 1999 legislation establishing the ``Paid-Up Provision'' was a
good idea with the wrong effective date--it was given a 2008 effective
date because that Congress wanted to defer any budgetary impact.
Accounting conventions and budgetary targets, however, should not
determine whether we are going to keep faith with our military men and
women. Any arrangement that treats them with any trace of unfairness or
lack of appreciation for their service is not right, is not in our
national interest and should be fixed.
The Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 2004 is such a fix it--
corrects a significant inequity among an important group of military
retirees, and I urge its adoption.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2177
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 ``Military Survivors' Fairness
Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR
BENEFIT PLAN.
Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1,
2004''.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2180. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange
certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the
State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today
that would effect a small land exchange to help the city of Golden, CO
in its efforts to augment its water supply, that it might better
prepare for a resumption of the drought which has plagued our State in
the past several years. The bill I am proposing would direct that the
U.S. Forest Service complete a land exchange with the city of Golden at
the earliest possible date.
In the land exchange, the city would receive approximately 10 acres
of National Forest land near Empire, CO. The city needs this land to
complete construction of a 140-foot stretch of water pipeline
connecting the West Fork of Clear Creek with a brand new water storage
reservoir, known as the Guanella Reservoir, which the city completed in
December. The Guanella Reservoir will increase the city's existing
water storage capacity by approximately 40 percent, and better enable
it to cope with future water shortages.
This legislation is critical, because while the Guanella Reservoir is
now completed, as is the diversion dam, penstock, and all but 140 feet
of the connecting pipeline, the reservoir remains dry. In short, the
pipeline is completed up to the National Forest boundary, and
authorization is needed from either the Forest Service or Congress to
complete the small remaining stretch of pipeline that must cross
National Forest land. Until that authorization is provided, the
reservoir is sitting empty, and that is a situation we do not want to
see continued into the dry summer months. Unfortunately, the Forest
Service has indicated it would take quite some time, possibly several
years, to authorize the pipeline, and we have agreed with them that
this land exchange is the best approach to meet everyone's needs and
time frames.
For this reason, I am introducing this important legislation, and
have asked the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to expedite it
in every way possible.
Additionally, I would like to note that while providing the city of
Golden the ability to finish a critical water storage project, my
proposal is also a beneficial deal for the United States. In return for
the 10 acres it will give up, the Forest Service will receive up to 80
acres of land near a popular trail and recreation area in Evergreen,
CO, and will also receive 55 acres of land on and near the Continental
Divide National Scenic Trail in Clear Creek and Summit Counties. The 55
acres are located along one of the most popular stretches of the Trail,
and are one of the ways hikers and other users can access the popular
Greys and Torreys Peaks, two of the most heavily-climbed 14,000 foot
peaks in our State. Further, my bill provides that all land values will
be determined in accordance with Forest Service appraisal procedures,
so we will be insuring that the United States will receive full market
value for its land. In addition, the City is making a donation of
Continental Divide Trail lands above which are required. I believe this
is truly a ``win-win'' situation for all concerned, and commend the
City for making the additional donation to the Forest Service.
Finally, I would like to note that my proposal has been endorsed by
the County Commissioners of all three counties that have lands involved
in the trade, the non-profit Continental Divide Trail Alliance, the
City of Blackhawk Public Works Department, the Georgetown Loop Scenic
Railroad, and by numerous others.
Again, I would recommend this legislation for my colleagues' quick
approval in order that the City of Golden can get on with its urgent
needs to supply adequate additional water to its residents this summer.
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. 2180
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 ``Arapaho and Roosevelt
National Forests Land Exchange Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE, ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL
FORESTS, COLORADO.
(a) Conveyance by the City of Golden.--
(1) Lands described.--The land exchange directed by this
section shall proceed if, within 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the City of Golden, Colorado (in
the section referred to as the ``City''), offers to convey
title acceptable to the United States to the following non-
Federal lands:
(A) Certain lands located near the community of Evergreen
in Park County, Colorado, comprising approximately 80 acres,
as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Non-Federal Lands--
Cub Creek Parcel'', dated June, 2003.
(B) Certain lands located near Argentine Pass in Clear
Creek and Summit Counties, Colorado, comprising approximately
55.909 acres in 14 patented mining claims, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Argentine Pass/Continental
Divide Trail Lands'', dated September 2003.
(2) Conditions of conveyance.--The conveyance of lands
under paragraph (1)(B) to the United States shall be subject
to the absolute right of the City to permanently enter upon,
utilize, and occupy so much of the surface and subsurface of
the lands as may be reasonably necessary to access, maintain,
repair, modify, make improvements in, or otherwise utilize
the Vidler Tunnel to the same extent that the City would have
had such right if the lands had not been conveyed to the
United States and remained in City ownership. The exercise of
such right shall not require the City to secure any permit or
other advance approval from the United States. Upon
acquisition by the United States, such lands are hereby
permanently withdrawn from all forms of entry and
appropriation under the public land laws, including the
mining and mineral leasing laws, and the Geothermal Steam Act
of l970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(b) Conveyance by United States.--Upon receipt of
acceptable title to the non-Federal lands identified in
subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall
simultaneously convey to the City all right, title and
interest of the United States in and to certain Federal
lands, comprising approximately 9.84 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Empire Federal Lands--Parcel
12'', dated June 2003.
(c) Equal Value Exchange.--
(1) Appraisal.--The values of the Federal lands identified
in subsection (b) and the non-Federal lands identified in
subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be determined by the Secretary
through appraisals performed in accordance with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (December
20, 2000) and the Uniform Standards of
[[Page S2443]]
Professional Appraisal Practice. Except as provided in
paragraph (3), the conveyance of the non-Federal lands
identified in subsection (a)(1)(B) shall be considered a
donation for all purposes of law.
(2) Surplus of non-federal value.--If the final appraised
value, as approved by the Secretary, of the non-Federal lands
identified in subsection (a)(1)(A) exceeds the final
appraised value, as approved by the Secretary, of the Federal
land identified in subsection (b), the values may be
equalized--
(A) by reducing the acreage of the non-Federal lands
identified in subsection (a) to be conveyed, as determined
appropriate and acceptable by the Secretary and the City;
(B) the making of a cash equalization payment to the City,
including a cash equalization payment in excess of the amount
authorized by section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)); or
(C) a combination of acreage reduction and cash
equalization.
(3) Surplus of federal value.--If the final appraised
value, as approved by the Secretary, of the Federal land
identified in subsection (b) exceeds the final appraised
value, as approved by the Secretary, of the non-Federal lands
identified in subsection (a)(1)(A), the Secretary shall
prepare a statement of value for the non-Federal lands
identified in subsection (a)(1)(B) and utilize such value to
the extent necessary to equalize the values of the non-
Federal lands identified in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the
Federal land identified in subsection (b). If the Secretary
declines to accept the non-Federal lands identified in
subsection (a)(1)(B) for any reason, the City shall make a
cash equalization payment to the Secretary as necessary to
equalize the values of the non-Federal lands identified in
subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Federal land identified in
subsection (b).
(d) Exchange Costs.--To expedite the land exchange under
this section and save administrative costs to the United
States, the City shall be required to pay for--
(1) any necessary land surveys; and
(2) the costs of the appraisals, which shall be performed
in accordance with Forest Service policy on approval of the
appraiser and the issuance of appraisal instructions.
(e) Timing and Interim Authorization.--It is the intent of
Congress that the land exchange directed by this Act shall be
completed no later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. Pending completion of the land
exchange, the City is authorized, effective on the date of
the enactment of this Act, to construct a water pipeline on
or near the existing course of the Lindstrom ditch through
the Federal land identified in subsection (b) without further
action or authorization by the Secretary, except that, prior
to initiating any such construction, the City shall execute
and convey to the Secretary a legal document that permanently
holds the United States harmless for any and all liability
arising from the construction of such water pipeline and
indemnifies the United States against all costs arising from
the United States' ownership of the Federal land, and any
actions, operations or other acts of the City or its
licensees, employees, or agents in constructing such water
pipeline or engaging in other acts on the Federal land prior
to its transfer to the City. Such encumbrance on the Federal
land prior to conveyance shall not be considered for purposes
of the appraisal.
(f) Alternative Sale Authority.--If the land exchange is
not completed for any reason, the Secretary is hereby
authorized and directed to sell the Federal land identified
in subsection (b) to the City at its final appraised value,
as approved by the Secretary. Any money received by the
United States in such sale shall be considered money received
and deposited pursuant to Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C.
484(a); commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'', and may be used,
without further appropriation, for the acquisition of lands
for addition to the National Forest System in the State of
Colorado.
(g) Incorporation, Management, and Status of Acquired
Lands.--Land acquired by the United States under the land
exchange shall become part of the Arapaho and Roosevelt
National Forests, and the exterior boundary of such forest is
hereby modified, without further action by the Secretary, as
necessary to incorporate the non-Federal lands identified in
subsection (a) and an additional 40 acres as depicted on a
map entitled ``Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Boundary
Adjustment--Cub Creek'', dated June 2003. Upon their
acquisition, lands or interests in land acquired under the
authority of this Act shall be administered in accordance
with the laws, rules and regulations generally applicable to
the National Forest System. For purposes of Section 7 of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of l965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
9), the boundaries of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National
Forests, as adjusted by this subsection shall be deemed to be
the boundaries of such forest as of January 1, 1965.
(h) Technical Corrections.--The Secretary, with the
agreement of the City, may make technical corrections or
correct clerical errors in the maps referred to in this
section or adjust the boundaries of the Federal lands to
leave the United States with a manageable post-exchange or
sale boundary. In the event of any discrepancy between a map,
acreage estimate, or legal description, the map shall prevail
unless the Secretary and the City agree otherwise.
(i) Revocation of Orders and Withdrawal.--Any public orders
withdrawing any of the Federal lands identified in subsection
(b) from appropriation or disposal under the public land laws
are hereby revoked to the extent necessary to permit disposal
of the Federal lands. Upon the enactment of this Act, if not
already withdrawn or segregated from the entry and
appropriation under the public land laws, including the
mining and mineral leasing laws and the Geothermal Steam Act
of l970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Federal lands are
hereby withdrawn until the date of their conveyance to the
City.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2181. A bill to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National
Park in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that
would authorize the exchange of lands between the Muriel MacGregor
Trust and the National Park Service, and to amend the boundary of Rocky
Mountain National Park to include the newly acquired land.
Rocky Mountain National Park was established by Congress on January
26, 1915, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United
States and to protect the natural conditions and scenic beauties of
this portion of the Rocky Mountains. The park currently encompasses
approximately 266,000 acres and has some of the most beautiful mountain
scenery to be found anywhere in our country. Each year the park draws
over 3 million visitors.
The MacGregor Ranch, located near Estes Park, CO, was homesteaded in
1873, which predates the establishment of Rocky Mountain National Park.
In 1917, shortly after the establishment of the national park, the
National Park Service built a residence for park employees just inside
the park boundary, with access via a one-lane dirt road which crosses
the MacGregor Ranch for about \3/4\ of a mile. This access was provided
with the permission of the MacGregor family, but no easement, right-of-
way, or other legal document was ever recorded.
The MacGregor Ranch is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and is owned by the charitable Muriel MacGregor Trust. The
mission of the trust is to support youth education through the
preservation and interpretation of the historic buildings and
educational tours of this working high mountain cattle ranch. In 1980,
the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park was amended to include
much of the MacGregor Ranch, and in 1983 the National Park Service
purchased a conservation easement covering 1,221 acres of the ranch.
While the ranch is located within the authorized boundary of the
national park, it remains private property.
In the early 1970s, hikers and rock climbers began using the access
road through the MacGregor Ranch to reach a small parking lot located
just inside the park boundary. Known as the Twin Owls trailhead, the
popularity of the area has grown steadily. In recent years, overflow
parking has negatively impacted the ranch, and traffic on the one-lane
access road has negatively affected the character of the historic
homestead and has diminished the quality of the historic scene that
visitors to the ranch come to experience.
For several years, the National Park Service and the MacGregor Ranch
have been working to find a solution to the traffic and parking
problems. Several environmental assessments have been prepared to
examine various alternatives and gather public input. In 2003, based on
public input and an Environmental Assessment, the National Park Service
decided to relocate the Twin Owls parking lot to the east end of the
MacGregor Ranch, some distance away from the historic homestead. A new
access road and a larger trailhead parking lot that can accommodate 80
to 100 cars will be built at the new location.
So that the rules and regulations governing Rocky Mountain National
Park can be enforced at the new trailhead and along the access road,
the land needs to be incorporated into the national park. To accomplish
this, the MacGregor Trust and the National Park Service have agreed to
a land exchange. The National Park Service will acquire three parcels
of land containing 5.9 acres from the MacGregor Trust for the
development of the new parking lot and access road. In exchange, the
MacGregor Trust will acquire up to 70 acres from the National Park
Service that will be used for
[[Page S2444]]
growing hay and cattle grazing. A conservation easement will be placed
on the 70 acres that is transferred to the MacGregor Trust. The
conservation easement will ensure that the property is used solely for
ranching.
The land exchange is intended to be an equal value exchange. One of
the three parcels currently owned by the MacGregor Trust is zoned for
residential development and has a high monetary value. A conservation
easement will be placed on the 70 acres currently owned by the National
Park Service, which will diminish its monetary value. If the lands
currently owned by the National Park Service are of higher value, less
than 70 acres will be transferred to the MacGregor Ranch. If the three
parcels owned by the MacGregor ranch are of higher value, the Ranch is
willing to accept the unequal value and will only receive a maximum of
70 acres from the National Park Service.
This legislation is needed to authorize the land exchange, and to
amend the park boundary to include the new lands to be added to park.
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. 2181
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 ``Rocky Mountain National Park
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Federal parcel.--The term ``Federal parcel'' means the
parcel of approximately 70 acres of Federal land near
MacGregor Ranch, Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the
map.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map numbered 121/
60,467, dated September 12, 2003.
(3) Non-federal parcels.--The term ``non-Federal parcels''
means the 3 parcels of non-Federal land comprising
approximately 5.9 acres that are located near MacGregor
Ranch, Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the map.
(4) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Rocky Mountain National
Park in the State of Colorado.
SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.
(a) Exchange of Land.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept an offer to
convey all right, title, and interest in and to the non-
Federal parcels to the United States in exchange for the
Federal parcel.
(2) Conveyance.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which the Secretary receives an offer under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall convey the Federal parcel in exchange for
the non-Federal parcels.
(3) Conservation easement.--As a condition of the exchange
of land under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall reserve a
perpetual easement to the Federal parcel for the purposes of
protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values
of the Federal parcel.
(b) Boundary Adjustment; Management of Land.--On
acquisition of the non-Federal parcels under subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary shall--
(1) adjust the boundary of the Park to reflect the
acquisition of the non-Federal parcels; and
(2) manage the non-Federal parcels as part of the Park, in
accordance with any laws (including regulations) applicable
to the Park.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2183. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to create
team nutrition networks to promote the nutritional health of school
children; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Federal child nutrition programs have
long played a critical role in promoting healthy diets for American
children. First conceived over 50 years ago in response to concerns
about the impacts of the diets of American youth on their fitness for
the armed forces, Federal child nutrition programs have since expanded
and evolved to meet the needs of a diverse population.
However, alarming increases in obesity rates for children and
adolescents indicate that we are not doing enough in terms of nutrition
education. The statistics are truly startling. Heart disease, cancer,
stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two out of three deaths in the
United States, and the major risk factors for those diseases and
conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating
habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. In the last two
decades, obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in
adolescents, and today, one in seven young people are obese, and one in
three are overweight. Additionally, three out of four high school
students in the United States do not eat the recommended five or more
servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Finally, a recent report by
the Surgeon General estimated that obesity-related costs in the U.S.
are close to $100 billion a year.
Unfortunately, nutrition education programs have been chronically
under-funded. We have authorized 50 cents for every child served
through Federal child nutrition programs, which is equivalent to over
$24 million. This amount refers not to 50 cents per day, per week, or
per month--this is 50 cents per year! However, last year, the only
nutrition education program specifically directed at our Nation's
school children, Team Nutrition, was funded at $10 million. This is
equivalent to spending 21 cents a year on each child, a woefully
inadequate amount. In addition, no funds were appropriated to nutrition
education programs specifically designed to help States implement Team
Nutrition materials.
The Early Attention to Nutrition (EATN) Act of 2004, which I am
introducing today together with Senators Lugar and Dodd, would raise
the total amount dedicated to nutrition education to $50 million a
year. The funds would be used by the USDA to develop Team Nutrition
materials, and to support Team Nutrition Networks in the States.
Currently, only 21 States receive funding through Team Nutrition. This
bill would allow all States to obtain Team Nutrition grants, and would
fund a Team Nutrition Network in each State, which would be responsible
for disseminating and coordinating nutrition education initiatives. The
goal of the Team Nutrition Networks is to: instruct students with
regard to the nutritional value of foods and the relationship between
food and human health; provide assistance to schools in the adoption
and implementation of school policies that promote healthy eating;
foster community environments that support healthy eating and physical
activities; provide training and technical assistance to teachers and
school food service professionals consistent with this section;
evaluate State and local nutrition education programs; disseminate
educational materials statewide through the use of the Internet,
mailings, conferences, and other communication channels; provide
subgrants to school and school food authorities for carrying out
nutrition education activities at the local level; and provide
information to parents and caregivers regarding the nutritional value
of food and the relationship between food and health.
Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well-
being of our Nation's youth. The cost of improving the health of our
children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to
come if we do nothing.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and two letters of
support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2183
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 ``Early Attention To Nutrition
(EATN) Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are
responsible for \2/3\ of deaths in the United States;
(2) the major risk factors for those diseases and
conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy
eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use;
(3) obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in
adolescents over the last 2 decades;
(4) today, 1 in 7 young people are obese, and 1 in 3 are
overweight;
(5) obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children
to become obese adults;
(6) an overweight condition and obesity can result in
physical, psychological, and social consequences, including
heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-
esteem, and discrimination;
(7) only 2 percent of children consume a diet that meets
the 5 main recommendations for a healthy diet from the Food
Guide Pyramid published by the Secretary of Agriculture;
(8) 3 out of 4 high school students in the United States do
not eat the recommended 5
[[Page S2445]]
or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day; and
(9) 3 out of 4 children in the United States consume more
saturated fat than is recommended in the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans published by the Secretary of Agriculture.
SEC. 3. TEAM NUTRITION NETWORK GRANTS.
Section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1788) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 19. TEAM NUTRITION NETWORK GRANTS.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to promote the nutritional health of school children
through nutrition education and other activities that support
healthy lifestyles for children;
``(2) to provide grants to States for the development of
statewide, comprehensive, and integrated nutrition education
programs; and
``(3) to provide training and technical assistance to
States, school and community nutrition programs, and child
nutrition food service professionals.
``(b) Definition of Team Nutrition Network.--In this
section, the term `team nutrition network' means a
multidisciplinary program to promote healthy eating to
children based on scientifically valid information and sound
educational, social, and marketing principles.
``(c) Grants.--The Secretary is authorized to make grants
to State educational agencies to promote the nutritional
health of school children through the establishment of team
nutrition networks.
``(d) Allocation.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsections
(g) and (h), the Secretary shall allocate funds made
available for a fiscal year under subsection (i) to make
grants to eligible State educational agencies for a fiscal
year in an amount determined by the Secretary, based on the
ratio that--
``(A) the number of lunches reimbursed through food service
programs under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) in schools, institutions, and
service institutions in the State that participate in the
food service programs; bears to
``(B) the number of lunches reimbursed through the food
service programs in schools, institutions, and service
institutions in all States that participate in the food
service programs.
``(2) Minimum grant.--
``(A) In general.--The amount of a grant made to a State
educational agency for a fiscal year under this section shall
not be less than $500,000.
``(B) Insufficient funds.--If the amount made available for
any fiscal year is insufficient to pay the amount to which
each eligible State educational agency is entitled under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall select, on a
competitive basis, eligible State educational agencies that
will receive, at least, the minimum amount of grants required
under subparagraph (A).
``(e) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State educational agency shall submit a State
plan to the Secretary for approval, in such manner and at
such time as the Secretary determines, that includes
information regarding how the grant will be used in
accordance with this section.
``(f) Uses of Grant.--Subject to subsection (g), a grant
made under this section may be used to--
``(1) instruct students with regard to the nutritional
value of foods and the relationship between food and human
health;
``(2) promote healthy eating by children;
``(3) provide assistance to schools in the adoption and
implementation of school policies that promote healthy
eating;
``(4) foster community environments that support healthy
eating and physical activities;
``(5) provide training and technical assistance to teachers
and school food service professionals consistent with this
section;
``(6) evaluate State and local nutrition education
programs;
``(7) disseminate educational materials statewide through
the use of the Internet, mailings, conferences, and other
communication channels;
``(8) provide subgrants to school and school food
authorities for carrying out nutrition education activities
at the local level; and
``(9) conduct programs and education for parents and
caregivers regarding healthy eating for children.
``(g) State Coordinators.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least
10 percent of a grant made to a State educational agency for
each fiscal year is used by the State educational agency to
appoint a team nutrition network coordinator for the State.
``(2) Role of state coordinators.--A team nutrition network
coordinator for a State shall--
``(A) develop and administer the team nutrition network in
the State; and
``(B) coordinate the team nutrition network of the State
with--
``(i) the Secretary (acting through the Food and Nutrition
Service);
``(ii) State agencies responsible for children's health
programs (including school-based children's health programs);
and
``(iii) other appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies.
``(h) National Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve 20 percent
of the amount of funds made available for each fiscal year
under subsection (i) to promote team nutrition networks
nationally in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Activities.--Of the amount of funds that are reserved
for a fiscal year under this section, the Secretary shall
use--
``(A) 50 percent of the reserved funds for--
``(i) evaluation of activities funded under this section;
and
``(ii) development of a clearinghouse for collecting and
disseminating information on best practices for promoting
healthy eating in school and community child nutrition
programs; and
``(B) 50 percent of the reserved funds to carry out
national activities to support team nutrition networks
through the Secretary, acting through the Undersecretary of
Food and Nutrition Services.
``(i) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--On October 1, 2004, and on each October
1 thereafter through October 1, 2007, out of any funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out this section $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1),
without further appropriation. ''.
____
American Dietetic Association,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Congratulations on developing the
Early Attention to Nutrition Bill (EATN Bill) of 2004. ADA
believes that when fully funded this bill will provide
American children and their families with better nutrition
education, physical activity education, and an overall more
supportive environment that will help them develop healthy
eating and activity patterns for life.
The American Dietetic Association is the world's largest
food and professional association, and bases its work on
evidence-based science to make recommendations that can
promote optimal nutritional health and well-being. With that
commitment to the public, our members are particularly
pleased that this bill give due focus to nutrition education.
ADA supports the legislation's concept of the team
Nutrition Network. Once enacted, Congress will need to assure
funding for these programs so that they may genuinely
contribute to improved health for American children. Your
support for a funding level that would ensure that all 50
states receive at least a minimum level of funding is highly
commendable and right on target as to what is needed. The
nutrition education programs funded by these grants should be
made available to both School lunch and breakfast sites as
well as the CACFP programs governed by the Child Nutrition
Act. Nutrition education and physical activity are key
components to promoting healthy lifestyles and must be
addressed across programs.
Thank you for introducing this very important legislation.
The ADA is pleased to endorse this important step toward
improving the health of our children.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Smith,
Director Government Affairs.
____
Center for Science in the
Public Interest,
March 8, 2004.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Attention: Dr. Daniela Ligiero.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI) thank you for for your long-standing record
of leadership in promoting healthy eating among children.
CSPI is a nonprofit health organization specializing in
nutrition that has over 800,000 members and subscribers to
its Nutrition Action Healthletter. We are pleased to strongly
support your ``Early Attention to Nutrition Act.''
As obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in
adolescents over the last two decades, the need for effective
nutrition education for children has become painfully
apparent. Your bill establishes a Team Nutrition Network that
would help educate children about the importance of healthy
eating to lifelong health. While the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's current Team Nutrition education program has
been effective in helping states to develop innovative
nutrition education programs, it does not provide consistent
and reliable funding year-to-year, nor does it include a
central mechanism to facilitate information-sharing between
states on best practices and innovations. The Team Nutrition
Network that your bill would establish is needed as an
addition to the existing Team Nutrition program to develop
and deliver effective nutrition education programs and
activities in schools.
Again, CSPI applauds your efforts to help ensure that
schoolchildren are taught valuable skills for lifelong
healthy eating. We look forward to continuing to work with
you and your staff to promote children's health.
Sincerely,
Margo G. Wootan,
D. Sc., Director, Nutrition Policy.
______
By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
S. 2185. A bill to simplify the process for admitting temporary alien
agricultural workers under section
[[Page S2446]]
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to
increase access to such workers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I introduce the Temporary Agriculture
Work Reform Act of 2004.
American farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world.
Technologies have allowed farmers to produce higher quality products
while increasing yields, and at the same time, reducing pesticide use.
I applaud our farmers for their important role in our Nation's economy.
One obstacle that agriculture producers continually grapple with is
labor. For many years, migrant workers have been the main source of
labor for agriculture. In fact, today migrant workers make up about 56
percent of farm labor. A key issue for our American producers is having
an efficient program to provide an agriculture workforce.
Reforms to the H2A program are warranted and needed. The program
should be user-friendly for both growers and workers with less
bureaucratic hassle. The program should operate in such a way to ensure
that American producers can have their crops harvested in a timely
fashion and that willing workers can get access to job opportunities.
We need a program that is easy to use and provides a stable, reliable
workforce for America's farmers.
My guest worker legislation reforms the cumbersome and uncompetitive
aspects of the H2A temporary agriculture worker program--without
providing amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S. The bill gives farmers
and workers a more functional program by simplifying the application
process, providing a prevailing wage rate, and ensuring U.S. workers
are not displaced.
The Adverse Effect Wage Rate, known by its acronym AEWR, has
consistently failed to provide competitive incentives for farmers to
become users of the H2A program. Due to the current need for foreign
workers and job protections in place for domestic workers, the AEWR is
no longer necessary. By replacing the AEWR with a prevailing wage rate,
legal workers will maintain a pay scale that is equal with their
counterparts.
The bill provides a labor attestation process to ensure that American
workers are not displaced. This labor attestation process replaces the
burdensome labor certification process currently in effect, which too
often causes delays that have a detrimental effect on the seasonal
agricultural industry. A similar labor attestation process has worked
well for the H1B visa program, and I believe it can be used effectively
for the H2A program. The bill also mandates stiff penalties on
employers for misrepresentation and U.S. worker displacement. Bottom
line, if a U.S. worker wants the job, under my bill he can have it.
But when foreign workers are needed, the bill encourages workers to
come to the United States through legal channels. A one-time waiver
allows foreign workers to apply for the H2A program from their home
country if that person is inadmissible to the U.S. due to prior
authorized entry--this will deter the cycle of illegal entry that
endangers our national security. My bill does not provide amnesty or a
new way for illegal aliens to adjust to legal permanent resident status
other than in accordance with current law.
Finally, the bill includes a few narrow provisions, including re-
establishing language that Congress has repeatedly passed on
appropriations bills, to protect against frivolous lawsuits. Our
farmers should be providing for America's dinner table, not defending
meritless lawsuits.
There are a number of guest worker bills already introduced in the
Senate, and in fact, my Subcommittee held the first hearing several
weeks ago on the President's guest worker proposal. The bill I am
introducing today is a good first step to the kind of overall reform we
need. It meets our economic interests, protects U.S. workers, and
respects the rule of law without a broad amnesty for illegal aliens.
This legislation establishes a common sense and competitive H2A
program so that these employers can continue to produce the highest
quality food supply in the world. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to pass a much needed reform to the H2A program this year.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Kerry):
S. 2186. A bill to temporarily extend the programs under the Small
Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, through May
15, 2004, 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, today I introduce legislation that
keeps the Small Business Administration and its financing and
counseling assistance available to small businesses. Small businesses
need us to act now to keep critical assistance available to our
Nation's biggest job creators.
There should not be any objections to this bill. It has broad support
in the small business and the lending communities. The lending
provisions of the bill have the support of small borrowers that
testified before Congress over the past few weeks and the support of a
coalition of small business trade associations, including the trade
associations of 504 lenders and of 7(a) lenders, the American Bankers
Association and the Independent Community Bankers Association, as well
as the National Small Business Alliance and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and the women's business center provisions have the support
of women's trade associations such as Women Impacting Public Policy and
the Association of Women's Business Centers.
This bill authorizes the SBA and most of its programs through the May
15, 2004, which will allow time for the House to complete its work on
the SBA's 3-year reauthorization bill, passed by the Senate in
September 2003. In addition, this bill addresses several urgent issues
that are critical to keep SBA programs operating and helping small
businesses across the country.
Let me outline these for you. The first provision authorizes the
continued operation of the SBA's 504 loan guarantee program for the
rest of fiscal year 2004. Unless we act, the authority to operate this
program will expire on March 15, next Monday, and small businesses in
need of financing for fixed assets will be turned away. These loans are
for growing small businesses that need loans with long repayment terms
and fixed interest rates to afford a new building or perhaps land to
expand their business and their workforce, or equipment to improve or
increase production. The lenders who make these loans serve a unique
role in our economy--they develop economic opportunities where
conventional lenders are not willing to take a risk. They are not a shy
group, and care deeply about the communities where they live. I am sure
most, if not all, Senators have received numerous calls and
communications from them over the past few weeks. It is my hope that
extending authorization will provide some stability to the industry so
that they continue to fund our growing businesses, and then in the near
future, the House will consider our more comprehensive SBA
reauthorization legislation, bill number S. 1375, that we passed in
September, to enact other important 504 program improvements that are
supported by the small business community. This loan program requires
no appropriations because it is funded entirely by fees that borrowers
and lenders pay.
The second provision keeps open the doors of our most experienced and
successful Women's Business Centers, again without added cost to the
Treasury. This bill contains a small adjustment to the Women's Business
Center program that updates the current funding formula. The adjustment
changes the portion of funding allowed for women's business centers in
the sustainability part of the program to keep up with the increasing
number of centers that will need funding this fiscal year. In short,
this change directs the SBA to reserve 48 percent of the appropriated
funds for the sustainability centers, instead of 30 percent, which will
give the most experienced centers the greatest opportunity to receive
sustainability funding, while still allowing for new centers and
protecting existing ones.
Currently there are 88 women's business centers. Of these, 35 are in
the initial grant program and 53 will have graduated to the
sustainability part of
[[Page S2447]]
the program. These sustainability centers make up more than half of the
total women's business centers, but under the current funding formula
are only allotted 30 percent of the funds. Without the change to 48
percent, all grants to sustainability centers could be cut in half--or
worse, 23 experienced centers could lose funding completely. Cutting
funding for these, our most efficient and successful centers, would not
only be detrimental to the centers themselves, but also to the women
they serve, to their local communities, to their states, and to the
national economy.
As the author of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of
1999, I can tell you that when the bill was signed into law, it was
Congress's intent to protect the established and successful
infrastructure of worth, performing centers. The law was designed to
allow all graduating Women's Business Centers that meet certain
performance standards to receive continued funding under sustainability
grants. This approach allows for new centers to be established--but not
by penalizing those that have already demonstrated their worth. It was
our intention to continue helping the most productive and well-equipped
women's business centers, knowing that demand for such services was
rapidly growing.
Today, with women-owned businesses opening at one-and-a-half times
the rate of all privately held firms, the demand and need for women's
business centers is even greater. Until Congress makes permanent the
Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot program, as intended in
Senate-passed legislation, an extension of authority and increase in
sustainability funds is vital--not only to the centers themselves, but
to the women's business community and to the millions of workers
employed by women-owned businesses around the country.
The importance of the women's business centers to small business
owners in communities across this country cannot be overstated. Take
for instance the story of Melanie Marsden and Shannon Lawler, who
recently opened A Better Place to Be Day Spa in Charlestown, MA. While
working on a business plan last summer, the two hopeful entrepreneurs
happened across the website of the Center for Women and Enterprise
(CWE), a women's business center in Boston. Having just signed a lease
and with a target opening for their spa quickly approaching, Melanie
and Shannon were looking for help, and quick. At first, the process
seemed overwhelming, but the experts at CWE were able to guide Melanie
and Shannon through the complicated process--from business plan to
long-term financing and management. CWE helped Melanie and Shannon open
A Better Place to Be Day Spa and already see a steady stream of clients
pass through their doors. Without CWE, Melanie and Shannon believe that
they would not have opened their business on time, or at all. Last year
alone, women's business centers like CWE helped over 100,000
entrepreneurs just like Melanie and Shannon with their small business
needs. The majority of these women have few resources and little access
to business development assistance, and without the women's business
centers, they might have none.
As I have said on more than one occasion, women business owners do
not get the recognition they deserve for the contribution to our
economy: Eighteen million Americans would be without jobs today if it
weren't for these entrepreneurs who had the courage and the vision to
strike out on their own. For 19 years, as a member of the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have worked to
increase the opportunities for these enterprising women, leading to
greater earning power, financial independence and asset accumulation.
For these women, in addition to the challenge and experience of running
their own business, it means having a bank account, buying a home,
sending their children to college, and being in control of their own
future.
I want to again express my sincere and continuing support for the
growing community of women entrepreneurs across the Nation and for the
invaluable programs through which the SBA provides women business
owners with the tools they need to succeed. For years, I have fought
for increased funding for SBA assistance that helps women
entrepreneurs, including measures that have sustained and expanded the
Women's Business Centers, and give women entrepreneurs their deserved
representation within the Federal procurement process.
The third provision makes temporary changes to the SBA's largest loan
program, the so-called 7(a) program, in order to compensate for the
administration's budget gimmicks and program mismanagement that caused
a substantial shortage in funding. This shortage led to a temporary
shutdown of the program in January, followed by lending restrictions
that created serious financial hardships for small businesses and
reduced access to affordable capital for small businesses in general.
For the remainder of fiscal year 2004, a coalition of 7(a) lenders and
small business groups have worked with Congress to come up with some
limited fees, paid by lenders and not borrowers, that will increase the
amount of lending available. That extra funding will increase from $9.5
billion to more than $11 billion the amount of loan guarantees
available to small businesses. With more funding, Congress expects the
SBA to lift the loan cap size of $750,000 and other restrictions, give
priority in processing and approval to eligible small businesses that
have been shut out this year, and require the SBA to renew export
working capital loans to eligible small businesses.
Of course, these changes would not be necessary if the administration
had either requested adequate funding in its budget or used its
authority to reprogram money to compensate for the shortfall. It also
could have sent up a request for supplemental funding. On three
different occasions, I wrote to the administration urging these
actions, with the support of Senators Levin, Harkin, Lieberman,
Landrieu, Edwards, Cantwell, Bayh, and Pryor, urging any of these
solutions, but the administration refused to act. Instead, the
insufficient funding was compounded by mismanagement and the program
was completely shutdown from January 6 to January 14. When the
administration reopened the program, it was with extreme restrictions.
The restrictions were aimed at keeping the demand for the loans down
without regard to their effect on the small businesses the Agency is
intended to serve. Small businesses appealed to the administration and
our committees for help because they were caught in the middle. For
example, one company in Pennsylvania has a $1 million export working
capital loan that needs to be renewed, but it can't because one of
SBA's restrictions does not allow loans of more than $750,000. At risk
is the home of one of the owners because it is part of the collateral
securing the existing loan. This company is qualified; it's just
trapped by the SBA's restrictions. With your help in passing this bill
immediately, we can do the right thing for these small business owners
and others who played by the rules. There is no cost to the Treasury in
enacting these provisions.
Last, the fourth provision, addresses an urgent need for some firms
in New York needing disaster loan assistance. Many have said we should
wait until we address other SBA legislation in the next 60 days.
However, hundreds of jobs are at stake and these businesses do not have
2 months. This language is included at the bipartisan request of the
House Small Business Committee leadership. Their staffs worked closely
with the SBA to develop this language, which is acceptable to all of
them. In addition to the support of House Committee Chairman Don
Manzullo and Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, this provision is also
supported by Congresswoman Sue Kelly and Senator Charles Schumer.
All four provisions address circumstances that require immediate
action. Let me remind everyone: Without this legislation, the SBA's
loan program for growing businesses, commonly referred to as the 504
Loan Guarantee Program, would shut down next Monday, March 15, 2004.
Without this legislation, the future of counseling and training for
women starting and growing their businesses, through the most
established SBA's Women's Business Centers, would be compromised.
Without this legislation, small businesses with their homes and life
savings at stake may face financial and personal devastation because of
program mismanagement. Without this
[[Page S2448]]
legislation, small business disaster victims may go out of business.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters relating to
programs affected by this legislation be printed in the Record. I thank
my colleagues for their support of small businesses and for considering
immediate passage of this important small business bill.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
A Better Place to Be Day Spa,
Charlestown, MA.
Dear Senator Kerry: This past summer I had the opportunity
to work with the Center for Women & Enterprise when I was in
the beginning stages of writing a business plan for a small
day spa that had long been a dream. My business partner and
childhood friend and I were both born to working class
families and raised in Charlestown. I was educated in the
Boston Public School system and went on to attend Boston
University on one of their Boston Scholars full tuition
scholarships. While working full time after graduation, I
decided to enroll at the Muscular Therapy Institute in
Cambridge with the goal in mind of opening my own business
someday. My business partner held down a full time job and
attended The Elizabeth Grady School of Aesthetics in
preparation for our venture. While for many years we talked
about our dream, we know that making that dream become the
reality it is today, would not have been possible without
programs like the Center for Women & Enterprise and the Small
Business Administration.
For the last 2 years we had been keeping our eyes and ears
open about commercial space in Charlestown, which is not easy
to come by and generally not affordable. Our goal was to open
by May 2004 (when I will turn 30 and my partner will be 31).
We hadn't even begun the business plan writing when the ideal
location became available in August. The 1,500 square foot
commercial space is located at Mishuwam Park Apartments on
Maine Street in Charlestown which is an apartment complex
funded through the HUD Section 236 program and is managed by
Peabody Properties. We had to move quickly on the space and
before we knew it we had signed a lease and incorporated in a
matter of days. Our target opening date then became November
1st which didn't leave us much time to pull things together
but we didn't even know how overwhelming the whole process
might have been if we had not found the Center for Women &
Enterprise.
After contacting CWE, I received a call back within minutes
from Bea Chiem and she would prove to be an invaluable
resource to us during the following months. She took what was
very complicated and overwhelming for us and made it so much
easier to understand. Every time we would come to a part of
the financials that we thought we might never figure out, we
knew Bea was only a phone call away. I was most impressed by
her response time to each and every question I had. Her
patience, knowledge and belief in our vision played a major
role in us getting the financing we needed. CWE should be
proud to have such a caring and knowledgeable woman on the
team.
The closing on our loan with Sovereign finally took place
last week and we got a $60,000 term loan and the $40,000 line
of credit we requested from Sovereign through an SBA loan.
Shannon and I cannot thank the Center for Women & Enterprise
enough for all of their help. We have no doubt that without
CWE (and Bea) in our corner the financial institutions we
approached would not have taken us as seriously.
The way in which the center for Women & Enterprise reaches
out to help women in business inspired us to do the same. In
selecting suppliers and inventory for our gift shop within
the spa, we chose to carry products that were made by women
or by women owned businesses with a preference given to
Massachusetts or New England based businesses.
A Better Place to Be Day Spa, was received well by the
Charlestown community, we had 400 people at our grand opening
open house on November 1st and have a steady stream of
clients coming through our doors each day. And in the short
time we have been open we have seen many repeat clients
already. Our business got off to a great start because of the
Center for Women & Enterprise and as we continue to grow I
will be sure to let our clients know that A Better Place to
Be Day Spa is here because of the guidance we received from
the Center for Women & Enterprise and the support of the
Small Business Administration.
In closing I need you to know that what the Center for
Women & Enterprise and the SBA do for women in business is
truly incredible. I particularly enjoy the frequent
newsletters outlining upcoming events as well as educational
opportunities and workshops that I will be sure to take
advantage of in the future. A Better Place to Be Day Spa will
be represented at the upcoming State House Day and we will
continue to look for ways that we can give back to other
women in business through CWE.
Thank you.
Melanie Marsden,
Shannon Lawler,
Owners.
____
National Association of
Women Business Owners,
Kansas City MO, March 9, 2004.
Hon. John Kerry,
Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the Kansas City chapter of
the National Assoc. of Women Business Owners (representing
200 members), I would like to request the following actions
be taken regarding the SBA 7(a) program.
Absent the SBA asking congress for additional funding,
NAWBO supports increasing fees on lenders as an approach to
adequately fund the SBA 7(a) program and to lift
restrictions.
Specifically, NAWBO would like the program to:
Allow piggyback loans, but charge a 0.50 percent lender fee
for each;
Raise lender fees by 0.10 percent; and
For loans that are under $150,000, have lenders pay the SBA
the 0.25 percent fee that lenders currently keep for
themselves. This only applies to these small loans.
Thank you.
Elaine Hamilton,
Public Policy Chair.
____________________