[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 31 (Thursday, March 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2720-S2728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2194. A bill to amend part D of title IV of the Social Security
Act to improve the collection of child support, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is
very close to my heart--the Child Support Improvement Act of 2004. I
want to express my appreciation for the leadership of the Senator from
Connecticut on these issues, and his willingness to co-sponsor this
bill.
In my career, I have had the opportunity to see the significant
problems facing our child support system from several different
perspectives.
As a district judge in Texas, I ruled in divorce and custody cases. I
saw the powerful emotions involved in these cases, where the best
interests of children are fought over even as the relationships that
brought them into this world fall apart.
And I had to make judgments in a large number of child support cases
before Texas implemented the system for expediting these cases by
establishing the masters program.
As a Supreme Court justice, I had the opportunity to write opinions
that had a real and positive affect on child support.
As Attorney General, I saw the positive effects of enforced
guidelines for child support, visitation, and income withholding. I
worked to implement Federal mandates. And I saw that we had a deep hole
to climb out of, a child support system that was in terrible shape.
My first priority was to improve customer service. I saw that more
than $16 million in child support payments were collected but
undistributed due to computer errors, leaving those most in need of
assistance without their child support payments merely because of
computer or administrative problems.
And the vast majority of the people calling the child support offices
for assistance were automatically disconnected or received a busy
signal. Only one in every seven phone calls was actually answered--one
in seven.
We got to work fast. We focused on both the dead beat and the dead
broke parents. We fixed the customer service system, establishing eight
regional call centers and an interactive web site to provide case-
specific information on a secure site for parents to access. We worked
with community organizations to establish a dozen fatherhood programs.
We got payments out the door more quickly, and we reduced undistributed
collections. And I announced a top ten list of ``Texas' Most Wanted
Child Support Evaders,'' those dead beat parents who willfully evaded
arrest.
In the end, we collected more than $3 billion in child support. Some
folks called it a miracle. I call it a good start.
I believe that this body has the responsibility to do more to help
our child support system be more efficient, more responsive, and do
more to improve the lives of children and families.
The proposal that I am introducing today, along with the
distinguished Senator from Connecticut--who has a deep understanding of
the issue and, like me, served his State as attorney general--features
several long-needed reforms of our child support provisions.
It includes new distribution options for states to get more child
support to families on TANF, and to pay more child support to families
who were previously on TANF.
This bill also has several provisions based on my experience as
Attorney General: 1. It encourages States to do more medical support
enforcement, by giving states a funding incentive that will ultimately
reduce our Federal Medicaid and S-CHIP costs. 2. It promotes early
monitoring of child support orders, cutting red tape so that states
have greater freedom to innovate and large arrearages never occur. 3.
It focuses on reducing undistributed collections by directing more
Federal resources toward finding solutions to this widespread problem.
4. It gets payments to custodial parents quickly, by urging States to
use electronic payment methods. 5. And it allows States the option to
send all non-IV-D child support payments to the State Disbursement
Unit, reducing expenses, paperwork and confusion for employers and
accelerating payments to families.
I believe that all of these reforms are necessary and important
steps. They will lower costs, increase efficiency, and get children
more of the help they need.
Even as we strive to improve our child support system, we cannot
underestimate the social importance of the family as a component of our
mission. As author Maggie Gallagher once wrote: ``When men and women
fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of
government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result.
There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on
social programs that is not driven in large part by family
fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school
failure, and mental and physical health problems.''
I strongly believe that the family is the fundamental institution of
our civilization. If fosters successful communities, happier homes, and
healthier lives.
The family provides the foundation for raising each new generation of
Americans. And when families are weakened, children suffer the most.
Even the best child support system in the world cannot give the caring
love and nurturing of family--which is why I believe we need to have a
child support system that genuinely encourages parents to be an active
part of their child's life.
We need a child support system that focuses on the dead beat and dead
broke parents, that brings the worst evaders in, and that puts the
family first. Let us in this body strive to do everything we can, as we
hope for a brighter future for this nation and future generations of
American children.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL ( for himself, Ms. Collins, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2196. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify
that per diem payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
care of Veterans in State homes shall not be used to offset payments
that are made under the medicaid program for the purpose of assisting
veterans; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues Senators Collins and Snowe to introduce legislation which
will rectify a very serious problem affecting veterans in my State and
around the Nation. The bill I am introducing will clarify the treatment
of the per diem payments made by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
VA, to
[[Page S2721]]
support State Veterans Homes across the country.
For several decades, Federal law has required that the VA pay a per
diem amount to States to support quality care provided to eligible
veterans at qualified State Veterans Homes. This VA per diem, currently
about $56 per day for nursing home care and $27 per day for domiciliary
care, is intended to assist States in providing the best possible care
to those who served in our armed forces.
In Colorado and a number of other States, the availability of the VA
per diem is threatened by interpretations of Medicaid rules by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. CMS would treat the VA
per diem payments as third-party payments, requiring that the entire
amount be offset against Medicaid payments. This interpretation would
deny residents of State Veterans Homes who receive Medicaid in these
states any benefit whatsoever of the VA per diem payments.
I believe this runs contrary to the intent of Congress in
establishing the VA per diem payment system. State Veterans Homes are
required to meet stringent and costly VA standards for care as a
condition for receiving these per diem payments. These standards of
care exceed those required by Medicaid, and the VA per diem makes it
possible for State Veterans Homes to meet the higher VA standards. Most
importantly, this per diem allows our veterans to receive high quality
nursing care.
An insistence by CMS on its interpretation would jeopardize the
funding balance for many Medicaid-certified State Veterans Homes across
the country. The result of the CMS interpretation would be to force
State Veterans Homes that do not currently offset the VA per diem
payments against Medicaid funding to reduce their standard of care,
defer construction of needed new facilities, and possibly close certain
State Veterans Homes.
The legislation we are introducing today would simply clarify that
the VA per diem payments cannot not be considered to be a third-party
liability under Medicaid. It would build on other precedents where
Congress wanted to make sure that benefits were received by their
intentional recipients, not transferred to the Medicaid program. For
example, federal law already includes exceptions for similar payments,
such as those made under the Indian Health program.
Our legislation recognizes that the States fund their State Veterans
Homes in a variety of different manners. It preserves their flexibility
to do so in a way that best serves their veterans, and ensures that no
state is forced to lose the benefit of the VA per diem.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and move forward
with a plan that will enable our State Veterans Nursing Homes to
provide the high quality care that our veterans deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2196
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TREATMENT UNDER MEDICAID PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS PER DIEM PAYMENTS TO STATE
HOMES FOR VETERANS.
Section 1741 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Payments to States pursuant to this section shall not
be considered a liability of a third party for any purpose
under section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396a(25)).''.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 2197. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act to clarify the status of certain communities in the
western Alaska community development quota program; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as residents of sparsely populated
State with great natural resources but severe poverty in many of its
rural areas, Alaskans have engaged in a variety of social and economic
exercises intended to improve the living standard and expand economic
opportunities for our most challenged communities.
I rise today to introduce a bill to ensure that one of the most
successful of those exercises is allowed to continue. I am pleased to
say the measure is also cosponsored by Alaska's senior senator.
The CDQ Community Preservation Act is intended to maintain the
participation of all currently eligible communities along the shore of
the Bering Sea in Alaska's Community Development Quota program. It is
necessary because inconsistencies in statutory and regulatory
provisions may require a reassessment of eligibility and the exclusion
of some communities from the program. This was not the intent of the
original program, nor of any subsequent changes to it. In order to
clarify that fact, a legislative remedy is needed.
The Community Development Quota Program began in 1992, at the
recommendation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, one of
the regional councils formed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Congress gave the program permanent
status in the 1996 reauthorization of the Act.
The program presently includes 65 communities within a 50 nautical-
mile radius of the Bering Sea, which have formed six regional non-
profit associations to participate in the program. The regional
associations range in size from one to 20 communities. Under the
program, a portion of the regulated annual harvests of pollock,
halibut, sablefish, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and crab is assigned to
each association, which operate under combined Federal and State agency
oversight. Almost all of an association's earnings must be invested in
fishing-related projects in order to encourage a sustainable economic
base for the region.
Typically, each association sells its share of the annual harvest
quotas to established fishing companies in return for cash and
agreements to provide job training and employment opportunities for
residents of the region. The program has been remarkably successful.
Since 1992, approximately 9,000 jobs have been created for western
Alaska residents with wages totaling more than $60 million. The CDQ
program has also contributed to fisheries infrastructure development in
western Alaska, as well as providing vessel loan programs; education,
training and other CDQ-related benefits.
The CDQ program has its roots in the amazing success story of how our
offshore fishery resources were Americanized after the passage of the
original Magnuson Act in 1976. At the time, vast foreign fishing fleets
were almost the only ones operating in the U.S. 200-mile Exclusive
Economic Zone. American fishermen simply did not have either the
vessels or the expertise to participate.
The Magnuson Act changed all that. It led to the adoption of what we
called a ``fish and chips'' policy that provided for an exchange of
fish allocations for technological and practical expertise. Within the
next few years, harvesting fell almost exclusively to American vessels.
Within a few years after that, processing almost became Americanized.
Today, there are no foreign fishing or processing vessels operating in
the 200-mile zone off Alaska, and the industry is worth billions of
dollars each year.
The CDQ program helps bring some of the benefits of that great
industry to local residents in one of the most impoverished areas of
the entire country. It is a vital element in the effort to create and
maintain a lasting economic base for the region's many poor
communities, and truly deserves the support of this body.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2197
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 ``CDQ Community Preservation
Act''.
SEC. 2. WESTERN ALASKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM.
(a) Eligible Communities.--Section 305(i)(1) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1855(i)) is amended adding at the end the following:
[[Page S2722]]
``(E) A community shall be eligible to participate in the
western Alaska community development quota program under
subparagraph (A) if the community was--
``(i) listed in table 7 to part 679 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2004; or
``(ii) approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service on
April 19, 1999.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Such section is further amended,
in paragraph (B), by striking ``To'' and inserting, ``Except
as provided in subparagraph (E), to''.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2198. A bill to provide for refinancing of consolidated student
loans; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the
Consolidated Student Loan Reduction Act of 2004.
A college education is becoming more and more crucial as American
workers seek to compete in the global marketplace. Yet, the cost of a
college education is rising each year, making it less accessible to low
and moderate income individuals. While grants and scholarships are
available, students have come to increasingly rely on student loans.
Between 1992 and 2002, Federal student loans increased by 165 percent,
and in 2003, $65 billion--or 70 percent of total Federal student aid--
was in the form of loans. The average debt for a college graduate is
$17,000, and it can exceed $100,000 for a graduate student.
Under Federal law, and in order to receive longer repayment terms,
individuals may consolidate their student loans into one loan. The
interest rate on the consolidated loan is fixed. So while current law
gives individuals a longer time to repay their student debt, it does
not allow them to take advantage of the low interest rates that prevail
in the marketplace today. Graduates may refinance their houses at lower
rates but cannot do the same with student loans.
My bill would change that and would permit individuals to refinance
their consolidated Federal loans at the same interest rate as Federal
Stafford loans, which fluctuate with the market and are generally below
the prevailing market rate. Individuals could refinance anytime their
consolidated loan rate exceeded 1 percent of the Stafford loan rate.
And under my bill the borrower is not required to pay any fee or costs
when they refinance.
There are many in Congress who have introduced legislation to make a
college education more accessible and affordable to American students.
I support many of those efforts. My modest bill is a step in this
direction, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Feingold, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 2199. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to
improve the ability of State and local governments to prevent the
abduction of children by family members, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator
Hutchison, Senator Snowe, Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to
introduce the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2004,'' a bill to
help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each
year.
Family abductions are the most common form of abduction yet they
receive little attention and law enforcement often doesn't treat them
as the serious crimes that they are.
The Family Abduction prevention Act of 2004 would provide grants to
states for costs associated with family abduction prevention.
Specifically, it would assist States with: costs associated with the
extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family
abduction; costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to
investigate cases of missing children; training for local and State law
enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions; outreach and
media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions;
and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with
flagging school records.
Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the
United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non-
custodial parent.
More than half of abducting parents have a history of domestic
violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record.
Most State and local law enforcement agencies do not treat these
abductions as serious crimes. Approximately 70 percent of law
enforcement agencies do not have written guidelines on responding to
family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws
available to help in the search and recovery.
Many people believe that a child is not in grave danger if the
abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not true, and the
assumptions can endanger a child's life. Research shows that the most
common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other
parent--not out of love for the child.
The effects of family abduction on children are very traumatic.
Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break
emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some family abductors will
coach a child into falsely ``disclosing'' abuse by the other parent to
perpetuate their control during or after abduction. The child is often
told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them.
As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes a
part of life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally
trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after
recovery, the child often has a difficult time into adulthood.
On Takeroot.org, a website devoted to victims of family abductions,
Rebekah told the story of when her mother kidnapped her.
Her mother was diagnosed as manic and was verbally abusive to her
children and husband. Rebekah's father was awarded full custody of her
and her brothers. However, one weekend, when Rebekah was 4-years-old,
her mother took her to Texas.
Her mother had all her moles and distinguishing marks removed from
her body and she had fake birth certificates made for Rebekah and
herself. As Rebekah grew up, she was told that her father didn't love
her and that her siblings didn't want to see her. When the FBI finally
found Rebekah, she didn't remember her father and felt very alone.
In addition, in many family abduction cases, children are given new
identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they
are. In extreme cases, the child's sexual identity is covered up to
avoid detection.
Abducting parents often deprive their children of education and much-
needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school
or medical records.
In extreme cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with
strangers at an underground ``safe house'' where health, safety, and
other basic needs are extremely compromised.
For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls were abducted by their
mother and moved from house to house under the control of a convicted
child molester. Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old
Anna and 4-year-old Emily in violation of court custody orders. Nunez
drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San
Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded
sign at the airport.
The person holding the sign belonged to an underground vigilante
group called the California Family Law Center led by Florencio Maning,
a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the
concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people. Luckily,
police were able to track down the girls and they were successfully
reunited with their father.
California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction.
In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the
investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County
District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's
Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction
cases. Therefore, investigators only handle family abduction cases and
become experts in the process.
However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively
recover children who are kidnapped by a family
[[Page S2723]]
member. According to a study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and
Hotaling, 62 percent of parents surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or
``very'' dissatisfied with police handling of their family abduction
cases.
The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2004'' would be an important
first step in addressing this serious issue.
I urge my colleagues to quickly act on this important legislation.
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. 2199
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 ``Family Abduction Prevention
Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress findings that--
(1) each year more than 203,000 children in the United
States (approximately 78 percent of all abducted children)
are abducted by a family member, usually a parent;
(2) more than half of the parents who abduct their children
have a history of alcohol or substance abuse, a criminal
record, or a history of violence;
(3) the most common motive for family abduction is revenge
against the other parent, not protecting the child's safety;
(4) children who are abducted by family members suffer
emotional, psychological, and often physical abuse at the
hands of their abductors;
(5) children who are victims of family abductions are
forced to leave behind family, friends, their homes, their
neighborhoods, their schools, and all that is familiar to
them;
(6) children who are victims of family abductions are often
told that the parent who did not abduct the child has died,
does not love them, or will harm them;
(7) children who are abducted by their parents or other
family members are sometimes forced to live in fear of
discovery and may be compelled to conceal their true
identity, including their real names, family histories, and
even their gender;
(8) children who are victims of family abductions are often
denied the opportunity to attend school or to receive health
and dental care;
(9) child psychologists and law enforcement authorities now
classify family abduction as a form of child abuse;
(10) approximately 70 percent of local law enforcement
agencies do not have written guidelines for what to do in the
event of a family abduction or how to facilitate the recovery
of an abducted child;
(11) the first few hours of a family abduction are crucial
to recovering an abducted child, and valuable hours are lost
when law enforcement is not prepared to employ the most
effective techniques to locate and recover abducted children;
(12) when parents who may be inclined to abduct their own
children receive counseling and education on the harm
suffered by children under these circumstances, the incidence
of family abductions is greatly reduced; and
(13) where practiced, the flagging of school records has
proven to be an effective tool in assisting law enforcement
authorities find abducted children.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Family abduction.--The term ``family abduction'' means
the taking, keeping, or concealing of a child or children by
a parent, other family member, or person acting on behalf of
the parent or family member, that prevents another individual
from exercising lawful custody or visitation rights.
(2) Flagging.--The term ``flagging'' means the process of
notifying law enforcement authorities of the name and address
of any person requesting the school records of an abducted
child.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or
possession of the United States, and any Indian tribe.
SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES.
(a) Matching Grants.--The Attorney General shall make
grants to States for projects involving--
(1) the extradition of individuals suspected of committing
a family abduction back to the State from which the child was
taken;
(2) the investigation by State and local law enforcement
agencies of family abduction cases;
(3) the training of State and local law enforcement
agencies in responding to family abductions and recovering
abducted children, including the development of written
guidelines and technical assistance;
(4) outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the
dangers of family abductions; and
(5) the flagging of school records.
(b) Matching Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the
cost of a project for which a grant is made under this
section shall be provided by non-Federal sources.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General
$500,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 2200. A bill to extend nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of Laos; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2200
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO LAOS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Lao People's Democratic Republic is pursuing a
broad policy of adopting market-based reforms to enhance its
economic competitiveness and achieve an attractive climate
for investment;
(2) extension of normal trade relations treatment would
assist the Lao People's Democratic Republic in developing its
economy based on free market principles and becoming
competitive in the global marketplace;
(3) establishing normal commercial relations on a
reciprocal basis with the Lao People's Democratic Republic
will promote United States exports to the rapidly growing
southeast Asian region and expand opportunities for United
States business and investment in the Lao People's Democratic
Republic economy;
(4) United States and Laotian commercial interests would
benefit from the bilateral trade agreement between the United
States and the Lao People's Democratic Republic, signed in
2003, providing for market access and the protection of
intellectual property rights;
(5) the Lao People's Democratic Republic has taken
cooperative steps with the United States in the global war on
terrorism, combating the trafficking of narcotics, and the
accounting for American servicemen and civilians still
missing from the Vietnam war; and
(6) expanding bilateral trade relations that include a
commercial agreement may promote further progress by the Lao
People's Democratic Republic on human rights, religious
tolerance, democratic rule, and transparency, and assist that
country in adopting regional and world trading rules and
principles.
(b) Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment to the
Products of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.--
(1) Harmonized tariff schedule amendment.--General note
3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
is amended by striking ``Laos''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date of
a notice published in the Federal Register by the United
States Trade Representative that a trade agreement obligating
reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment between the Lao
People's Democratic Republic and the United States has
entered into force.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2201. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide for
secondary containment to prevent methyl tertiary butyl ether and
petroleum contamination; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
prevent chemicals that leak from underground storage tanks from causing
environmental and public health damage. My colleague in the House of
Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.
Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can
move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams
and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in
urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks
to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and
economic growth.
There are approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks in the
United States, and more than 430,000 confirmed releases from these
tanks as of
[[Page S2724]]
mid-2003. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking
underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43
States. Twenty-nine States have drinking water contamination. Estimates
indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE
contamination nationwide. Currently, the leaking underground storage
tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to
clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills.
However, the best solution to leaking underground storage tanks is to
prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary
containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support
for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require
secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in
California, or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In
addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such
requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls,
containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment
Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003
were double walled.
But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our
drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population
relies on groundwater for their drinking water. In 2000, 42 States had
MTBE detected in soil or groundwater at gasoline-contaminated leaking
underground storage tank sites. The time to prevent contamination is
now.
We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 2202. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to give
district courts of the United States jurisdiction over competing State
custody determinations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and
Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a
bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family
members and taken to a foreign country each year.
Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public
concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful
retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American
children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved
and continues to be a serious problem.
The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and
international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would:
Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child
custody disputes;
Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been
entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database
under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a
disposition can be made;
Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on
each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction;
Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide
services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there
is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive
measure; and
Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody
orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in
situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child,
or to stop an abduction in progress. The National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which law enforcement felt
unable to intervene because parents represented conflicting orders.
Such conflict has lead to international abductions that could have been
prevented.
As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of
Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904
open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based
parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a
foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is
higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And
new cases are reported every week.
As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have
accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina
Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman.
In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the
Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction
cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic
relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular
officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances.
A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made
limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.
Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the
United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7
years.
The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice
and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that
we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted
children.
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the
United States, that established civil procedures to follow when
locating, accessing, or returning abducted children.
This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind
parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their
case and their children home.
For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a
case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife
or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior
written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female
American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they
have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male
guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a
U.S. citizen.
This legislation would require that the Department of State report to
Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not
part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia.
The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in
helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they
need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and
return them home.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
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. 2202
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 ``Bring Our Children Home
Act''.
SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER COMPETING STATE CUSTODY ORDERS.
Section 1738A of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(i) If a court of 1 State makes a child custody
determination in accordance with subsection (c) and if that
determination is in conflict with a determination made by
another State in accordance with subsection (c), a contestant
for whom such a determination was made may bring an action in
the district court of the United States the district of which
includes the resident of such contestant to determine, on the
basis of the best interests of the child involved, which
determination shall prevail.''.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CUSTODY ORDERS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a
national child custody and visitation registry in which shall
be entered--
(1) certified copies of custody and visitation
determinations made by courts throughout the United States
(and foreign custody orders concerning children temporarily
or permanently resident in the United States);
(2) information identifying pending proceedings in courts
throughout the United States for initial, modification, or
enforcement orders; and
[[Page S2725]]
(3) information identifying proceedings filed in any court
in the United States pursuant to the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the
International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and resulting
orders.
(b) Cooperation.--The Attorney General shall seek the
cooperation of Federal and State courts in each State, and
the District of Columbia, in providing relevant information
to the registry on an ongoing basis. The Attorney General
shall provide such financial and technical assistance as
necessary.
(c) Access.--The registry shall be accessible to courts,
law enforcement officials, custody contestants, and their
legal representatives.
SEC. 4. DETENTION OF CHILDREN LISTED AS MISSING.
Law enforcement officers of any State or local government
may hold, for not more than 24 hours or until a disposition
can be made, any child listed under any category of the
Missing Person File by the National Crime Information Center
for the proper disposition of the child in accordance with
the latest valid custody determination applicable to the
child.
SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION REMEDIES.
(a) Legal Assistance for Victims of Parental Kidnapping.--
Section 7 of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act
(42 U.S.C. 11606) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Legal Assistance for Victims of Parental Kidnapping
Grants.--
``(1) Funding to legal services providers.--The Central
Authority shall establish a program to provide funding to
legal services providers, including private attorneys, public
officials acting pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, legal aid programs, and law
school clinical programs, to provide direct legal or advocacy
services on behalf of persons seeking remedies under the
Convention, or other civil or criminal remedies in interstate
or international parental kidnapping cases.
``(2) Training and technical assistance.--The Central
Authority, directly or through grants, shall provide training
and technical assistance to recipients of funds under
paragraph (1) to improve their capacity to offer legal
assistance described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Legal Services Corporation.--The Legal Services
Corporation may use funds made available to the Corporation
for programs to represent aliens in proceedings brought in
the United States under the Convention--
(1) if the individuals to whom the representation is
provided otherwise meet the criteria of the Corporation for
eligible clients under the Legal Services Corporation Act;
and
(2) whether or not such individuals are resident in the
United States.
(c) Exemption From Court Costs.--Section 8(b) of the
International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42 U.S.C.
11607(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) No court costs may be assessed on a petitioner in
connection with a petition seeking the return of, or rights
of access to, a child located in the United States, pursuant
to this Act.
``(2) Petitioners may be required to bear the costs of
legal counsel or advisors, court costs incurred in connection
with their petitions (other than petitions described in
paragraph (1)) and travel costs for the return of the child
involved and any accompanying persons, except as provided in
paragraphs (3) and (4).''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(4)''; and
(B) by inserting ``(other than in connection with a
petition described in paragraph (1))'' after ``or court
costs''.
(d) Responsibilities of United States Central Authority.--
Section 7 of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act
(42 U.S.C. 11606) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Technical Assistance.--The United States Central
Authority shall encourage the Chief Justice of every State
and the District of Columbia to designate a single court, or
a limited number of courts, in which cases brought under the
Convention may be heard. The Central Authority may provide
technical assistance (including computers and Internet
access) as necessary to foster consolidation of jurisdiction
and implementation of the Convention, consistent with the
purposes of the Convention.
``(g) Training.--The United States Central Authority shall
provide or promote training of State court judges, lawyers,
and law students on the civil and criminal laws pertaining to
interstate and international parental kidnapping. To carry
out this subsection, the United States Central Authority may
make available funds under subsection (e) to State judicial
educators, national, State, and local bar associations, and
law schools. The United States Central Authority shall
require recipients of such funds to report on the training
programs they present, including the number of
participants.''.
(e) Federal Judicial Center.--Section 620 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Continuing Education and Training Programs.--The
Center shall include in its continuing education and training
programs, including the training programs for newly appointed
judges, information on the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction, the International
Child Abduction Remedies Act, the International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act, and other Federal statutes pertaining
to parental kidnapping within the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts, and shall prepare materials necessary to carry out
this subsection.''.
SEC. 6. REPORTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION.
(a) Report on Progress in Negotiating Bilateral Treaties
With Non-Hague Convention Countries.--The Secretary of State
shall prepare and submit to the Congress an annual report on
progress made by the United States in negotiating and
entering into bilateral treaties (or other international
agreements) relating to international child abduction with
countries that are not contracting parties to the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction.
(b) Report on Human Rights Practices.--(1) Section 116(d)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the status of efforts in each country to prohibit
international child abduction, including--
``(A) efforts to expedite the return of children to the
country of their habitual residence; and
``(B) the extent to which the country respects the rights
of custody and of access under the laws of other
countries.''.
(2) Section 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2304(b)) is amended by inserting after the sixth
sentence the following: ``Each report under this section
shall include information on the status of efforts in each
country to prohibit international child abduction, including
efforts to expedite the return of children to the country of
their habitual residence and the extent to which the country
respects the rights of custody and of access under the laws
of other countries.''.
(c) Report on Enforcement of Section 1204 of Title 18,
United States Code.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall prepare and submit to the
Congress an annual report that contains a description of the
status of each case involving a request during the preceding
year for extradition to the United States of an individual
alleged to have violated section 1204 of title 18, United
States Code.
SEC. 7. SUPPORT FOR UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND
ENFORCEMENT ACT.
From amounts made available to carry out this section, the
Attorney General shall support, directly or through grants
and contracts, the adoption and implementation by the States
of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement
Act, as adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws (in this section referred to as the
``UCCJEA''). The support provided under this section shall
include the following activities:
(1) Activities to promote the adoption of the UCCJEA by
States that have not yet adopted it.
(2) Activities to provide training to lawyers and to judges
and other appropriate public officials to ensure that the
UCCJEA is implemented effectively and uniformly throughout
the United States.
(3) Activities to provide guidance and funding to States to
facilitate and expedite the enforcement by those States of
the custody and visitation provisions of the UCCJEA.
SEC. 8. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER EDUCATION PROGRAMS ON
PARENTAL KIDNAPPING.
The Federal Judicial Center, in fulfilling its function to
stimulate, create, develop, and conduct programs of
continuing education and training for personnel of the
judicial branch of the Government and other persons (as
specified in section 620(b)(3) of title 28, United States
Code), shall ensure that those programs include education,
training, and materials on the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction, the International
Child Abduction Remedies Act, the International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act, and such other international and
Federal laws relating to parental kidnapping as are within
the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.
SEC. 9. USE OF SUPERVISED VISITATION CENTERS UNDER THE SAFE
HAVENS FOR CHILDREN PILOT PROGRAM IN SITUATIONS
INVOLVING THE RISK OF PARENTAL KIDNAPPING.
Section 1301(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 10420(a)) is amended by striking ``or stalking''
and inserting ``stalking, or the risk of parental
kidnapping''.
______
By Mr. CORZINE:
S. 2203. A bill to provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in India,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
make India eligible for assistance under the Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief.
[[Page S2726]]
India is facing a critical moment. An estimated 4.58 million people
are infected with the HIV virus in India and HIV/AIDS has been reported
in almost all the states and union territories of the country. The
epidemic is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high-
risk groups to the general population. Given India's size and the
mobility of its population, there is a serious threat of catastrophe.
India's political leaders, public health officials, non-governmental
organizations, and medical and scientific communities have taken
important steps to combat HIV/AIDS. India, the world's largest
democracy, has skilled governmental and civil society actors who are
committed to a new awareness of the AIDS crisis and strategic
approaches to combating the disease. But significant gaps remain in the
Indian health care system's ability to address the full scope of the
crisis. These gaps require immediate and sustained U.S. engagement and
contribution of resources.
We must continue to expand the list of eligible countries in
recognition of the global nature of this pandemic. We must also
accelerate assistance to African and Caribbean countries already
included as focus countries. Finally, we must increase overall funding
to combat HIV/AIDS. India is but one example of the enormity of the
HIV/AIDS epidemic. But it is also an example of the opportunities for
America to reach out and find partners in combating this scourge. It is
not true that programs to fight AIDS cannot absorb more resources.
There is critical and urgent work to be done and committed
professionals ready to do it. They just need our help.
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. 2203
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Government of India has estimated that 4,580,000
people in India are infected with the human immunodeficiency
virus (``HIV'') and cases of individuals with the acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (``AIDS'') have been reported in
almost all the states and union territories of India.
(2) The effort to combat the HIV and AIDS epidemic in India
has reached a critical point, as the epidemic is spreading
rapidly from urban to rural areas and from high-risk groups
to the general population.
(3) Political leaders, public health officials, non-
governmental organizations, and medical and scientific
communities in India have taken important steps to combat HIV
and AIDS in that country, but assistance from the United
States is urgently needed to enhance such efforts.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the addition of India as a country for which the
Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat
HIV/AIDS Globally has responsibilities under section
1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department Basic Authorities
Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) should not
decrease the amount of funding the Coordinator makes
available for assistance to any other such country;
(2) the United States should continue to increase the
number of countries eligible to receive assistance from the
United States to combat HIV and AIDS; and
(3) the United States should increase the total amount of
assistance available to combat HIV and AIDS.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN INDIA.
Section 1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII))
is further amended by inserting ``India,'' after ``Haiti,''.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cornyn, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. 2204. A bill to provide criminal penalties for false information
and hoaxes relating to terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the September 11th attacks against
our Nation, each of us is more conscious of our individual safety and
security. No example hit closer to home than when anthrax-infected
letters made their way into Senators' offices. Senators,
Representatives and staffers were forced to vacate offices, advised to
take strong antibiotics, and faced with the uncertainty of whether they
contracted a life-threatening disease.
In response to this vulnerability that is now inherent in our
everyday lives, Congress has beefed up law enforcement and intelligence
tools to combat terrorism better. The key to fighting terrorism is to
target those planning terrorist acts and capture them before they can
realize their horrific goals. Our law enforcement communities have
utilized the new tools we have provided them to respond in a dedicated
and professional way to these new challenges.
Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a number of instances where
cruel and depraved individuals have engaged in terrorist hoaxes. For
example, people have sent letters containing powder or sugar and a note
stating that the recipient has now been infected by anthrax. These
hoaxes are more than a bad joke. They require a substantial and costly
response--evacuation of buildings, emergency medical tests or
treatment, and laboratory action. Hoaxes like these, which mimic
terrorist acts, undermine public confidence by spreading panic and
fear, and drain valuable resources from Federal, State, and local
government agencies which must respond to the hoax.
Under current Federal law, it is a felony to perpetrate certain
hoaxes, such as saying there is a bomb on an airplane. It is also
illegal to communicate a threat using the facilities of interstate
commerce that could cause personal injury to someone. However, because
hoaxes related to anthrax or other Federal crimes do not always contain
specific threats, they may not be covered by current federal law. The
Congressional Research Service has noted that this is a gap within the
current Federal code.
Clearly, there is a need for tough legislation to reflect the
seriousness of this type of crime. This is why Senators Schumer,
Cornyn, Feinstein and I are introducing the Stop Terrorist and Military
Hoaxes Act of 2004. The legislation criminalizes conduct that conveys
false or misleading information under circumstances where such
information may reasonably be believed. The bill covers hoaxes related
to biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and other federal crimes
that do not contain specific or express threats.
In addition, this bill criminalizes intentionally false statements
concerning the death, injury, capture or disappearance of a member of
the United States Armed Forces. During the recent liberation of Iraq,
there were several cruel hoaxes played on family members of those who
were risking their very lives in the service of our country. Family
members sacrifice alongside service men and women who place their lives
in danger in the service of our country. Those family members deserve
to be treated with respect and should be free from these cruel
deceptions. This bill makes sure that these malicious pranks can be
punished appropriately.
America is engaged in a war on terrorisms. In addition to protecting
our citizens from terrorist acts, we also need to take measures to
ensure that our law enforcement resources are not needlessly wasted by
responding to these offensive and expensive terrorist hoaxes. I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
______
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 2205. A bill to authorize the extension of unconditional and
permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations
treatment) to the products of Ukraine, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal
trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman
Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill in the House. We
introduced similar bills in the 107th Congress. It is our hope that
enactment of this legislation, which builds upon and improves our
previous legislative efforts, will help build stronger ties between the
United States and Ukraine.
Roughly three decades ago, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was included
in the Trade Act of 1974. While relatively small in number of words,
this provision helped open up an entire society by exposing the
repressive tactics of the Soviet Union. By focusing attention on the
emigration restrictions that the Soviet Union placed on its
[[Page S2727]]
Jewish citizens, the Jackson-Vanik amendment reiterated American
concern about the wide-scale human rights abuses occurring in the
Soviet Union. In the process, the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a
vital role in changing Soviet society.
The values that for nearly thirty years governed our relations with
the Soviet Union, democracy, freedom and the rule of law, remain
fundamental values to our nation. This bill seeks to address those
concerns while recognizing the anachronistic nature of applying
Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. In addition, this bill provides Congress with
a meaningful and effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully
addressed in World Trade Organization negotiations for Ukraine.
Ukraine does allow its citizens the right and opportunity to
emigrate. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik
requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade
agreement went into effect. It is now time for the United States
recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions
and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our
bill does this while addressing traditional Jackson-Vanik issues such
as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human
rights. These are the issues that led to the creation of the Jackson-
Vanik amendment, and we should not ignore them at this time.
Ukraine has taken some steps toward the creation of democratic
institutions and a free-market economy, but much more remains to be
done. The way in which Ukraine's October 2004 presidential elections
are conducted will go a long way toward determining the future path
this important strategic partner and ally will take.
The world is closely watching the process and conduct of this year's
presidential elections in Ukraine. Free and fair elections, regardless
of their final outcome, will be an important step toward Ukraine's
rapproachment with the community of nations. This election will be
vital for the process by which it is conducted. Thus far, there remains
reason for concern.
In Ukraine, there are many working to promote free and fair
elections; however, the staff of many civic and non-governmental
organizations are being harassed, intimidated and even physically
harmed. In addition, members of the media are facing similarly hostile
and life threatening situations. Just this month, Ukrainian affiliates
of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have been taken off the air,
arrested and had their stations raided. Such actions are inexcusable
and not in keeping with the fundamental values of freedom, openness and
the rule of law. It is my hope that the October 2004 elections will aid
Ukraine's transformation from a nation where fear undermines public
discourse into a nation where all facets of society can freely engage
in the market-place of ideas without fear of recrimination. The
Ukrainian people deserve no less.
Jackson-Vanik no longer applies to Ukraine and should be waived. But
we need to utilize other ways to address the many problems facing
Ukraine. I also hope that this legislation will remind Ukraine of the
benefits it can and will accrue when it rightfully assumes its place
among those nations that are guided by democracy, transparency and the
rule of law.
______
By Mr. SHELBY:
S.J. Res. 29. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of
war and subject to suspension by the Congress) that the total amount of
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such
fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product
of the United States during the previous calendar year; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal
Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to
discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress
since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress,
during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time
and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most
important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of
all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.
Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding
the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary
constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a
general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of
man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas
Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the
burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question
whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it
imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the
fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves
unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to
pay them ourselves.''
I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that
Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future
generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the
past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal
Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's
assessment of the significance of this is also correct:
intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.
Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and
``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the
promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades,
the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is,
it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are
allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for
current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this
same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and
the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance.
But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a
ballooning Federal debt.
A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain
mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the
Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren
with the current generation's debts.
A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the
everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would
dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with
a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any
other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by
balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into
the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand
for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private
sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth
and create thousands of new jobs.
More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the
economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget
amendment.
On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the
Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary
interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent
more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt.
That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and
crime programs combined.
We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring
them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on
improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a
cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in
the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is
being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government
continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.
[[Page S2728]]
A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution
to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a
path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7
trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no
longer be wasted on interest payments.
Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is
something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget
would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that
would require the Federal Government to do what every American already
has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs
to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this
extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to
the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned
tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and
future generations of Americans that much.
We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from
Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force
Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this
year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal
budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important
legislation.
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.J. Res. 29
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, to be valid only if ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within 7 years of the
date of final passage of this joint resolution:
``Article --
``Section 1. The total amount of money expended by the
United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed the total
amount of revenue received by the United States during such
fiscal year, except revenue received from the issuance of
bonds, notes, or other obligations of the United States.
``Section 2. The total amount of money expended by the
United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed the amount
equal to 20 per centum of the gross national product of the
United States during the last calendar year ending before the
beginning of such fiscal year.
``Section 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall not
apply during any fiscal year during any part of which the
United States is at war as declared by the Congress under
section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.
``Section 4. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article may be
suspended by a concurrent resolution approved by a three-
fifths vote of the Members of each House of the Congress. Any
suspension of sections 1 and 2 of this Article under this
section shall be effective only during the fiscal year during
which such suspension is approved.
``Section 5. This Article shall take effect on the first
day of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the
adoption of this Article.
``Section 6. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
Article by appropriate legislation.''.
____________________