[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 10 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S980-S992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 272. A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Caribbean 
National Forest Act of 2005 along with Senator Schumer.
  The Caribbean National Forest Act designates approximately 10,000 
acres of the Caribbean National Forest, CNF, as the El Toro Wilderness. 
The El Toro Wilderness would be the only tropical forest wilderness in 
the U.S. National Forest system.
  The CNF has long been recognized as a special area, worthy of 
protection. The Spanish Crown proclaimed much of the current CNF as a 
forest reserve in 1824. Just over 100 years ago, President Theodore 
Roosevelt reasserted the protection of the CNF by designating the area 
as a forest reserve.
  Located 25 miles east of San Juan, the CNF is a biologically diverse 
area. Although it is the smallest forest in the national forest system, 
the CNF ranks number one in the number of species of native trees with 
240. In addition, the CNF has 50 varieties of orchids and over 150 
species of ferns. The area is also rich in wildlife with over 100 
species of vertebrates, including the endangered Puerto Rican parrot. 
The only native parrot in Puerto Rico, they numbered nearly one million 
at the time that Columbus set sail for the New World. Today there are 
fewer than 100 of these parrots. The Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and Puerto Rico's Department of Natural Resources and 
the Environment have initiated a recovery program for the Puerto Rican 
Parrot. Wilderness designation will ensure that the forest home to the 
parrot will remain protected and the ongoing recovery efforts, 
consistent with the Wilderness Act, will continue.
  The CNF also provides valuable water to the people of Puerto Rico. 
The CNF receives over 10 feet of rain each year. As a result, the major 
watersheds in the CNF are able to provide water to over 800,000 
residents. In addition, the CNF provides a variety of recreational 
opportunities to almost one million Puerto Ricans and tourists each 
year. Families, friends and school groups come to the forest to hike, 
bird watch, picnic, swim and enjoy the scenic vistas.
  Wilderness designation of the El Toro will protect approximately one 
third of the forest. During a House hearing on this measure in 2003 the 
U.S. Forest Service stated its support for the designation of the El 
Toro Wilderness Area. Those views were reconfirmed last July, when Mark 
Rey, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural 
Resources and Environment, supported my legislation during his 
testimony before the Senate Energy and National Resources Subcommittee 
on Public Lands and Forests.
  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. 272

       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 ``Caribbean National Forest 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map dated April 13, 
     2004 and entitled ``El Toro Proposed Wilderness Area''.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. WILDERNESS DESIGNATION, CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST, 
                   PUERTO RICO.

       (a) El Toro Wilderness.--
       (1) In general.--In furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1113 et seq.), the approximately 
     10,000 acres of land in the Caribbean National Forest/
     Luquillo Experimental Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico described in the map are designated as wilderness and as 
     a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (2) Designation.--The land designated in paragraph (1) 
     shall be known as the El Toro Wilderness.
       (3) Wilderness boundaries.--The El Toro Wilderness shall 
     consist of the land described in the map.
       (b) Map and Boundary Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) prepare a boundary description of the El Toro 
     Wilderness; and
       (B) submit the map and the boundary description to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Public inspection and treatment.--The map and the 
     boundary description prepared under paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) shall be on file and available for public inspection in 
     the office of the Chief of the Forest Service; and
       (B) shall have the same force and effect as if included in 
     this Act.
       (3) Errors.--The Secretary may correct clerical and 
     typographical errors in the map and the boundary description 
     prepared under paragraph (1)(A).
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Secretary shall administer the El Toro Wilderness in 
     accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) 
     and this Act.
       (2) Effective date of wilderness act.--With respect to the 
     El Toro Wilderness, any reference in the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) to the effective date of that Act shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Special Management Considerations.--Consistent with the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), nothing in this Act 
     precludes the installation and maintenance of hydrologic, 
     meteorological, climatological, or atmospheric data 
     collection and remote transmission facilities, or any 
     combination of those facilities, in any case in which the 
     Secretary determines that the facilities are essential to the 
     scientific research purposes of the Luquillo Experimental 
     Forest.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Specter, 
        Mr. Graham, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Biden, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bond, and Mr. 
        Harkin):
  S. 273. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 to extend and improve national dairy market loss payments; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
legislation, which I introduce today, to extend the Milk Income Loss 
Compensation (MILC) program be printed in the Record.
  I am pleased to be joined by 26 of my colleagues--over a quarter of 
the United States Senate. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation 
that has nation-wide support including in the Midwest, Northeast, Mid-
Atlantic, South, and West. This is not only rare for legislative 
efforts generally but extremely rare in the world of dairy.
  MILC is important because it provides a critical safety net for dairy 
farmers that is equitable to all farmers across the country--also a 
departure from traditional federal dairy policy.

[[Page S981]]

  When milk prices fell to a 25 year low not long ago, MILC was vital 
in preventing a mass exodus of dairy farm families in my State. 
Fortunately, prices have recovered more recently. But should prices 
fall again, my dairy farm families need the kind of safety net provided 
by MILC.
  MILC is important in that it provides a strong safety net to all the 
Nation's dairy farmers in a market-oriented way that does not increase 
milk prices on the grocery shelf.
  For these and other reasons President Bush did the right thing and 
endorsed the extension of MILC. I am pleased to have the support of the 
President in this important endeavor and I hope my colleagues will join 
me in our effort.
  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. 273

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

     SECTION 1. NATIONAL DAIRY MARKET LOSS PAYMENTS.

       Section 1502 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7982) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (d)(2), by striking 
     ``2,400,000'' and inserting ``4,800,000''; and
       (2) in subsections (f) and (g)(1), by striking ``2005'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``2007''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a long list of 
colleagues in introducing a bill to extend the MILC program. This 
measure is supported by members from different regions of the country 
and both political parties. This broad base of support is a clear 
indication of this issue's importance.
  MILC, as most of my colleagues know, is the program created in the 
2002 Farm Bill after a very painful battle over the Northeast Dairy 
Compact. Many recall what a difficult time that was, with one group of 
dairymen pitted against another. I don't want to revisit that time. The 
MILC program bridged a bitter regional divide by providing a critical 
safety net when prices are low. And when prices rebound, the MILC 
program becomes dormant and costs nothing. The problem with MILC is 
that it expires on September 30 of this year--two years before the rest 
of the Farm Bill.
  In addition to the cosponsors, MILC extension is supported by sixteen 
governors, including the governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, 
Vermont, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, 
Michigan, New York, South Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, and North Dakota. 
Moreover, the President of the United States committed himself to MILC 
extension during the presidential campaign.
  I am hopeful the President's budget will include MILC extension when 
we receive it next Monday. That would be a helpful next step. But the 
fact of the matter is that budget resolutions never get signed into law 
in and of themselves. They are merely a framework for further 
discussion and work. And it will take effort both from Congress and the 
administration to see this extension translated into law. I look 
forward to working with the President and his new Secretary of 
Agriculture to make sure that happens.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeMINT:
  S. 274. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
include additional information in Social Security account statements; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in 1999, the Social Security 
Administration began mailing the new Your Social Security Statement to 
all Americans over the age of 25 but not retired.
  These statements include an accounting of Social Security taxes the 
individual worker has paid to date, the worker's eligibility status for 
benefits, and an estimate of the benefits the worker could receive.
  For most Americans, this personal statement will be the sole source 
of official information on Social Security; yet it downplays or omits 
important information about the program.
  The bill I am introducing today is called the Social Security Right 
to Know Act and would correct this problem at no cost by simply 
changing the statement to include information available in official 
reports.
  The improved statement would inform workers, using information in the 
Social Security Trustees' Report, that the taxes paid into the program 
may not be sufficient to fund all of their benefits in retirement.
  It would also inform workers, using information from the Office of 
Management and Budget, that the Social Security Trust Fund does not 
consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to 
fund benefits.
  The new statement would inform workers that they pay 6.2 percent of 
their earnings and their employer pays 6.2 percent on their behalf, for 
a total Social Security payroll tax of 12.4 percent.
  It would also illustrate and explain to workers using information 
from the Government Accounting Office that while Social Security has 
performed well in the past, its average rate of return is expected to 
decline in the future.
  While we may not agree on specific changes to Social Security, we 
should all agree that Americans have a right to know the true financial 
status of the program and how it will affect their retirement.
  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. 274

       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 ``Social Security Right to 
     Know Act''.

     SEC. 2. MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT 
                   STATEMENT.

       Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320b-13(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) a statement of the current social security tax rates 
     applicable with respect to wages and self-employment income, 
     including an indication of the combined total of such rates 
     of employee and employer taxes with respect to wages; and
       ``(G)(i) as determined by the Chief Actuary of the Social 
     Security Administration, a comparison of the total annual 
     amount of social security tax inflows (including amounts 
     appropriated under subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of 
     this Act and section 121(e) of the Social Security Amendments 
     of 1983 (26 U.S.C. 401 note)) during the preceding calendar 
     year to the total annual amount paid in benefits during such 
     calendar year;
       ``(ii) as determined by such Chief Actuary--
       ``(I) a statement of whether the ratio of the inflows 
     described in clause (i) for future calendar years to amounts 
     paid for such calendar years is expected to result in a cash 
     flow deficit,
       ``(II) the calendar year that is expected to be the year in 
     which any such deficit will commence, and
       ``(III) the first calendar year in which funds in the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will cease to be 
     sufficient to cover any such deficit;
       ``(iii) an explanation that states in substance--
       ``(I) that the Trust Fund balances reflect resources 
     authorized by the Congress to pay future benefits, but they 
     do not consist of real economic assets that can be used in 
     the future to fund benefits, and that such balances are 
     claims against the United States Treasury that, when 
     redeemed, must be financed through increased taxes, public 
     borrowing, benefit reduction, or elimination of other Federal 
     expenditures,
       ``(II) that such benefits are established and maintained 
     only to the extent the laws enacted by the Congress to govern 
     such benefits so provide, and
       ``(III) that, under current law, inflows to the Trust Funds 
     are at levels inadequate to ensure indefinitely the payment 
     of benefits in full; and
       ``(iv) in simple and easily understood terms--
       ``(I) a representation of the rate of return that an 
     average taxpayer retiring at retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l)) credited each year with average wages and 
     self-employment income would receive on old-age insurance 
     benefits as compared to the total amount of employer, 
     employee, and self-employment contributions of such a 
     taxpayer, as determined by such Chief Actuary for each cohort 
     of workers born in each year beginning with 1925, which shall 
     be set out in chart or graph form with an explanatory caption 
     or legend, and
       ``(II) an explanation for the occurrence of past changes in 
     such rate of return and for the possible occurrence of future 
     changes in such rate of return.

     The Comptroller General of the United States shall consult 
     with the Chief Actuary

[[Page S982]]

     to the extent the Chief Actuary determines necessary to meet 
     the requirements of subparagraph (G).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Thune):
  S. 276. A bill to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park 
in the State of South Dakota; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation 
from the previous Congress that will revise and expand the boundary to 
the Wind Cave National Park in Custer and Fall River County South 
Dakota. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator John Thune, has joined 
me today in introducing this important bill.
  Wind Cave National Park is one of the Nation's first national parks, 
containing in its boundaries one of the greatest expanses of 
underground cave complexes in North America. Established in 1903, Wind 
Cave National Park protects one of the world's oldest known cave 
formations with hundreds of miles of underground compartments. 
Amazingly, scientific measurements indicate that only five percent of 
the total cave has been discovered.
  With the option to acquire approximately 5,500 acres of land from 
willing sellers, Wind Cave National Park has a once-in-a-generation 
opportunity to significantly enhance one of the last remaining mixed-
grass prairie ecosystems in the world. The acquisition of this land 
adjacent to the southern boundary of the park will preserve a key 
archaeological site described as one of the only existing buffalo jumps 
used by Native Americans as they hunted the giant animal.
  I believe that the local park officials and the willing-seller 
landowner have done a good job in reaching out to the community and 
working to modify their original proposal to conform to the interests 
of adjacent landowners and the State of South Dakota. As with any land 
acquisition initiative the question of compensating local government's 
for the lost tax revenue is extremely important. The matter is 
particularly acute in western South Dakota, where large tracts of 
federal land result in particular challenges. To that end, I call on 
Congress to fully fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program and provide 
a dedicated revenue source to compensate local communities that have 
significant amounts of federal lands in the counties.
  The Wind Cave National Park is a South Dakota treasure shared with 
the entire world through the stewardship of the National Park Service. 
Some four million visitors come to the Black Hills each year and 
tourism is one of South Dakota's leading economic engines. It is my 
strong desire that the Congress will quickly take the appropriate steps 
necessary and demonstrate positive action in the consideration of this 
bill.
  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. 276

       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 ``Wind Cave National Park 
     Boundary Revision Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Wind 
     Cave National Park Boundary Revision'', numbered 108/80,030, 
     and dated June 2002.
       (2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Wind Cave National 
     Park in the State.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South 
     Dakota.

     SEC. 3. LAND ACQUISITION.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire the land or 
     interest in land described in subsection (b)(1) for addition 
     to the Park.
       (2) Means.--An acquisition of land under paragraph (1) may 
     be made by donation, purchase from a willing seller with 
     donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
       (b) Boundary.--
       (1) Map and acreage.--The land referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) shall consist of approximately 5,675 acres, as 
     generally depicted on the map.
       (2) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       (3) Revision.--The boundary of the Park shall be adjusted 
     to reflect the acquisition of land under subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer any land 
     acquired under section 3(a)(1) as part of the Park in 
     accordance with laws (including regulations) applicable to 
     the Park.
       (b) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall transfer from the 
     Director of the Bureau of Land Management to the Director of 
     the National Park Service administrative jurisdiction over 
     the land described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Map and acreage.--The land referred to in paragraph (1) 
     consists of the approximately 80 acres of land identified on 
     the map as ``Bureau of Land Management land''.

     SEC. 5. GRAZING.

       (a) Grazing Permitted.--Subject to any permits or leases in 
     existence as of the date of acquisition, the Secretary may 
     permit the continuation of livestock grazing on land acquired 
     under section 3(a)(1).
       (b) Limitation.--Grazing under subsection (a) shall be at 
     not more than the level existing on the date on which the 
     land is acquired under section 3(a)(1).
       (c) Purchase of Permit or Lease.--The Secretary may 
     purchase the outstanding portion of a grazing permit or lease 
     on any land acquired under section 3(a)(1).
       (d) Termination of Leases or Permits.--The Secretary may 
     accept the voluntary termination of a permit or lease for 
     grazing on any acquired land.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 277. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for direct access to audiologists for Medicare beneficiaries, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Hearing 
Health Acessibility Act with our colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator 
Harkin. This legislation is the companion bill to legislation that was 
introduced in the House by Representative Jim Ryun, with a number of 
cosponsors.
  This legislation will, in short, provide Medicare beneficiaries with 
the option of direct access to audiology services, as is the case for 
the health care programs administered by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and the Office of Personnel Management. Direct access works 
well for our veterans and for Federal employees, including Members of 
Congress, and should be available to senior citizens in the Medicare 
program.
  In 2003, the Congress in the Appropriations Conference Report number 
108-10 recommended that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
make this change. We have since learned from Mr. Joel Kaplan, Deputy 
Director, Office of Management and Budget, that CMS does not have the 
authority to do so under current law. Therefore, I hope that we can all 
agree that this is a common sense idea whose time has come, and move 
this legislation forward to enactment.
  Direct access would facilitate access to hearing care without 
expanding the scope of practice for audiologists. This legislation will 
make it easier for Medicare beneficiaries, particularly in rural 
America, to have the same high quality hearing care provided by the VA 
and OPM. It is also important to point out that both the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs now recognize State licensure as the appropriate 
standard for determining who is a qualified audiologist.
  This legislation enjoys the support the American Academy of 
Audiology, the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, and 
the Academy of Dispensing Audiologists. I commend this legislation to 
the attention of my colleagues.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 278. A bill to revise certain requirements for H-2B employers and 
require submission of information regarding H-2B non-immigrants, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant 
visas for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a 
matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home State of 
Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these 
seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height 
of the tourism season.
  On January 4, a mere 3 months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would 
immediately

[[Page S983]]

stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory 
cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who 
require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable 
to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas will already have 
been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, 
Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by their 
later tourism season.
  Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers 
to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to 
locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and 
without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners 
were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor 
sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this 
year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what 
is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for 
American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax 
revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and 
they can be avoided.
  This is why I am today introducing the Summer Operations and Seasonal 
Equity Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last 
year, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were 
counted against the cap within the past 3 years. Ths legislation also 
seeks to address the inequities in the current system by requiring that 
no fewer than 12,000 visas be made available in each quarter of the 
fiscal year. By holding back a limited number of visas for use in each 
quarter, we will ensure that employers across the country, operating in 
all four seasons, have a fair and equal opportunity to hire these much-
needed workers.
  We must act quickly on this legislation, however, or we will be too 
late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. 
We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next 
year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be 
necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands 
immediate solutions.
  In my home State of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage 
will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often 
comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, 
and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the 
State's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an 
important role in this very important industry.

  This is because, unfortunately, there are not enough American workers 
willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the 
level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the 
years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part 
of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In fiscal year 2003, the 
last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B 
program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority 
of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and 
restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer 
summer after summer.
  Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these 
foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, 
to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising 
and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. 
Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before 
CIS will process the visa applications. Therefore, unless and until 
more H-2B visas are made available, many of these jobs will remain 
unfilled and American businesses will suffer.
  A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which 
contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 
2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were 
employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the 
State where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By 
some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 
percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout 
Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million 
tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood 
supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to 
the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to 
bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, 
prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail 
production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this 
happens, it is American workers who may lose their jobs.
  The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism 
and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by 
fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league 
baseball teams. It will affect small businesses and large, visitors and 
locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska.
  The shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a 
problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this 
legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to 
move forward with this solution. We must resist the tendency to let 
this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled 
in the larger debate about our Nation's immigration policies. This is 
not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the 
United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our 
immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, 
respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in 
many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our 
nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these 
workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the 
economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses 
are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem 
now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 279. A bill to amend the Act of June 7, 1924, to provide for the 
exercise of criminal jurisdiction; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Bingaman, to introduce legislation to address a serious problem in the 
State of New Mexico. State case law currently holds that the State of 
New Mexico does not have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur on 
privately held land within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. Federal 
case law holds that the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction 
to prosecute crimes that occur on these lands. Read in tandem, these 
court decisions lead to the result that neither Federal, State nor 
tribal law-enforcement officials have jurisdiction on thousands of 
acres of privately owned lands within the boundaries of Indian pueblos. 
As a result, in recent years there have been stabbings, criminal 
sexual-contact cases, and aggravated battery charges that have stalled 
in court over jurisdiction questions.
  The prospect of having lands in my State where anyone can commit any 
crime and not be prosecuted for it is untenable and something that 
needs to be fixed. The legislation I am introducing today clearly 
outlines who is responsible for trying these cases by clarifying when a 
crime should be prosecuted in Federal, tribal, or State court. At the 
same time, the bill honors tribal sovereignty.
  If we do not address this problem, it will only worsen. This 
legislation culminates a lot of work among the New Mexico delegation, 
the pueblos, and the State. It is a necessary bill. It is a good bill. 
And I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to clarify jurisdiction 
over these lands.
  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. 279

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

     SECTION 1. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

       The Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636, chapter 331) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S984]]

     ``SEC. 20. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by 
     Congress, jurisdiction over offenses committed anywhere 
     within the exterior boundaries of any grant from a prior 
     sovereign, as confirmed by Congress or the Court of Private 
     Land Claims to a Pueblo Indian tribe of New Mexico, shall be 
     as provided in this section.
       ``(b) Jurisdiction of the Pueblo.--The Pueblo shall have 
     jurisdiction, as an act of the inherent power of the Pueblo 
     as an Indian tribe, over any offense committed by a member of 
     the Pueblo or of another federally recognized Indian tribe, 
     or by any other Indian-owned entity.
       ``(c) Jurisdiction of the United States.--The United States 
     shall have jurisdiction over any offense described in chapter 
     53 of title 18, United States Code, committed by or against a 
     member of any federally recognized Indian tribe or any 
     Indian-owned entity, or that involves any Indian property or 
     interest.
       ``(d) Jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico.--The State 
     of New Mexico shall have jurisdiction over any offense 
     committed by a person who is not a member of a federally 
     recognized Indian tribe, which offense is not subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 280. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the amortization of delay rental payments and geological and 
geophysical expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that will 
bolster our energy independence by clarifying current tax law regarding 
domestic oil and gas production.
  We need to promote domestic energy supplies because we are 
increasingly dependent on foreign oil to meet our energy needs. We 
currently import almost 60 percent from foreign countries. Promoting 
domestic production is both an economic and national security issue.
  The rational treatment of costs associated with exploration and 
production of energy resources is vital to attracting and retaining 
financing in an inherently capital-intensive industry. The bill I am 
introducing helps in this regard by allowing accelerated deduction of 
geological and geophysical (G&G) costs and delay rental payments. 
Specifically, this legislation will allow these expenses to be 
amortized over a 2 year period. This will encourage further development 
of the United States oil and gas industry.
  There is no reason G&G expenditures should be considered capital 
expenditures with a long amortization period rather than treating them 
more like research and development costs. Our current tax code 
needlessly limits the ability of domestic producers to develop our 
national petroleum reserves.
  Congress also needs to clarify that delay rental payments are 
deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. This is 
important for developers who cannot afford to run continuous operations 
on the properties they hold. The current uncertainty of how these costs 
are to be treated has led to costly litigation; prompt clarification 
will eliminate needless administrative burdens on taxpayers and the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill as an important step in 
developing energy independence. 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. 280

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

     SECTION 1. AMORTIZATION OF DELAY RENTAL PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 167 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to depreciation) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by 
     inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Amortization of Delay Rental Payments for Domestic 
     Oil and Gas Wells.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any delay rental payment paid or 
     incurred in connection with the development of oil or gas 
     wells within the United States (as defined in section 638) 
     shall be allowed as a deduction ratably over the 24-month 
     period beginning on the date that such payment was paid or 
     incurred.
       ``(2) Half-year convention.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     any payment paid or incurred during the taxable year shall be 
     treated as paid or incurred on the mid-point of such taxable 
     year.
       ``(3) Exclusive method.--Except as provided in this 
     subsection, no depreciation or amortization deduction shall 
     be allowed with respect to such payments.
       ``(4) Treatment upon abandonment.--If any property to which 
     a delay rental payment relates is retired or abandoned during 
     the 24-month period described in paragraph (1), no deduction 
     shall be allowed on account of such retirement or abandonment 
     and the amortization deduction under this subsection shall 
     continue with respect to such payment.
       ``(5) Delay rental payments.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `delay rental payment' means an amount 
     paid for the privilege of deferring development of an oil or 
     gas well under an oil or gas lease.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 167 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to depreciation), as amended by this Act, 
     is amended by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) 
     and by inserting after subsection (h) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Amortization of Geological and Geophysical 
     Expenditures.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any geological and geophysical expenses 
     paid or incurred in connection with the exploration for, or 
     development of, oil or gas within the United States (as 
     defined in section 638) shall be allowed as a deduction 
     ratably over the 24-month period beginning on the date that 
     such expense was paid or incurred.
       ``(2) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of 
     subsection (h) shall apply.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 263A(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     ``167(h), 167(i),'' after ``under section''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 282. A bill to amend the Family and Medical leave Act of 1993 to 
expand the scope of the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Clinton, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Leahy, Senator Akaka, 
Senator Boxer, and Senator Corzine, to introduce the ``Family and 
Medical Leave Expansion Act.'' Today marks the 12th anniversary of the 
enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark 
legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, more than 50 
million Americans have taken leave under FMLA.
  Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has 
helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have 
to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of 
Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And too 
many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot 
afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave 
Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these 
problems.
  The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope 
and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the state level 
to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that 
employees do not have to choose between job and family.
  Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working. 
While decades ago only a tiny fraction of mothers with infants under 
one year of age were working, in 2004 about 55 percent of mothers with 
infants were working. Even as employment rates within this group rises, 
family responsibilities remain constant, a reality that lies at the 
core of the FMLA. According to an employee survey by the Department of 
Labor, about one-fifth of U.S. workers have a need for some form of 
leave covered under the FMLA, and about 40 percent of all employees 
think they will need FMLA-covered leave within the next 5 years.
  According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for 
one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or 
parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave. 
Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own 
serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by 
young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption.

[[Page S985]]

  The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private 
employers of 50 or more employees provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid 
leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About 
77 percent of employees in the private and public sector currently work 
in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are 
actually eligible for leave.
  However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered 
under FMLA. Individuals working for smaller private employers deserve 
the same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward 
expanding protection to more hard-working Americans, this bill would 
extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more 
employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional 
13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act--roughly 
240,000 in my own State of Connecticut.
  Mothers and fathers, adult sons and daughters have the same family 
responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether 
they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a medium-
sized private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or 
more employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality.
  The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic 
violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to 
include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a 
daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence.
  Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many 
Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of 
Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but--without 
wage replacement--could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of 
those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford 
unpaid leave.
  Others cut their leave short, with the average duration of FMLA leave 
being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under the Family and 
Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes above $30,000.
  While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave 
can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and 
accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on 
public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of 
female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These 
individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are 
trying to balance work with family--often during a crisis, too often 
with inadequate means to get by.
  Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more 
family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family 
caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected 
maternity leave, with an average of sixteen weeks of basic paid leave. 
In 1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 
European Union mandated a paid fourteen-week maternity leave as a 
health and safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the average childbirth-
related leave is 44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 
36 weeks.
  Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far 
behind in efforts to promote stronger families and worker productivity. 
The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to 
provide pilot programs for States and the federal government to provide 
for partial or full wage replacement for at least 6 weeks. At a 
minimum, this will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet 
while taking family and medical leave.
  When we talk about a more compassionate America, nowhere is that more 
evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have to 
choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave 
when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing 
their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family 
integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace.
  We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite 
studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's 
life. This bill offers more parents the opportunity to spend time with 
their families when their families most need them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave 
Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and to ensure the welfare 
and health of hard-working Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a brief summary of the Family 
and Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act


                             Brief Summary

       Background: Since enactment in 1993, more than 50 million 
     employees have taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave 
     Act. The Act guarantees eligible employees working for 
     covered employers access to up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-
     protected leave within any 12-month period to care for their 
     health or the health of their families without putting their 
     jobs or health insurance at risk. About 11 percent of private 
     sector businesses are covered under FMLA; 77 percent of 
     employees work in these covered businesses (although about 62 
     percent of employees are eligible for FMLA).
       According to data from a 2001 Department of Labor study, 52 
     percent of leave-takers have taken time off to care for their 
     own serious illness; 26 percent have taken time off to care 
     for a new child or for maternity disability reasons; 13 
     percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill 
     parent; 12 percent have taken time off to care for a 
     seriously ill child; and 6 percent have taken time off to 
     care for a seriously ill spouse. About 42 percent of leave 
     takers are men; about 58 percent of leave-takers are women. 
     The median length of leave is 10 days; 80 percent of leaves 
     are for 40 days or fewer. About 73 percent of leave-takers 
     earn $30,000 or more.
       While the Family and Medical Leave Act has proven 
     invaluable to many Americans, too many are still not covered 
     by the law and others cannot afford to take leave under the 
     Act because leave is unpaid. Many women and men are unable to 
     take time off to care for their families, whether due to the 
     arrival of a new child or when a medical crisis strikes. More 
     than three in four (78 percent) employees who have needed but 
     who have not taken leave report that they simply could not 
     afford it.
       The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would expand the 
     scope and coverage of FMLA to ensure that even more American 
     workers do not have to choose between job and family. Too 
     many eligible individuals simply cannot afford unpaid leave. 
     Many forgo leave or take the shortest amount of time possible 
     because the current FMLA law requires only unpaid leave. The 
     Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would:
       Establish a pilot program to allocate grants to states to 
     provide paid leave for at least 6 weeks to eligible employees 
     responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or 
     adoption of a child or family illness. States may provide for 
     wage replacement directly or through an insurance program, 
     such as a state temporary disability program or a state 
     unemployment compensation program, or other mechanism. Such 
     paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks 
     of leave under FMLA.
       Expand the number of individuals eligible for FMLA by 
     covering employers with 25 or more employees (to enable 13 
     million more Americans to take FMLA).
       Expand the reasons for leave to include eligible employees 
     addressing domestic violence and its effects, which make the 
     employee unable to perform the functions of the position of 
     such employee or, to care for the son, daughter, or parent of 
     the employee, if such individual is addressing domestic 
     violence and its effects.
       Establish a pilot program within the federal government for 
     the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to administer a 
     partial or full wage replacement for at least 6 weeks to 
     eligible employees responding to caregiving needs resulting 
     from the birth or adoption of a child or other family 
     caregiving needs. Such paid leave shall count toward an 
     eligible employee's 12 weeks of leave under FMLA.
       Allows employees to use a total of 24 hours during any 12 
     month period to participate in a school activity of a son or 
     daughter, such as a parent-teacher conference, or to 
     participate in literacy training under a family literacy 
     program.
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Allen, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
McCain, Mr. Levin, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
Coleman, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
Grassley, Mr. Craig, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 284. A bill to distribute universal service support equitability 
throughout rural America, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. SMITH. President, I rise today to shine a spotlight on one of the 
most

[[Page S986]]

lopsided and unfair programs in the Federal Government, and to 
reintroduce legislation to correct it.
  Every year, the Federal Government collects millions of dollars in 
``universal service'' surcharges on telephone bills. In part, this 
money is intended to be used to provide, affordable telephone service 
in isolated, rural areas--a goal we all support.
  Unfortunately, instead of sending these funds equitably to rural 
areas throughout the United States, many residents in 40 States--
including some of the most rural States in the country--receive no 
support from this program, while a few States receive enormous 
windfalls. In 2005, about 75 percent of a key universal service fund 
account is projected to go to just three States and a single State will 
receive more than half of the funding provided by this program. All of 
this continues the pattern of lopsided funding distribution seen in 
recent years.
  I am referring to the Federal Universal Service Fund program for so-
called ``non-rural carriers.'' This is a ridiculous misnomer because 
more than 70 percent of all rural Americans are served by one of 30 so-
called ``non-rural'' carriers. If you live in a small, isolated town or 
rural area, you are likely served by one these carriers, and chances 
are your community is receiving none of the benefits of this program.
  The calls to fix this program have been growing louder and louder. In 
the 108th Congress, more than 80 independent organizations and state 
and local officials called on us to fix this unfair, broken program, 
including 21 governors, 38 State utility commissioners, the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, and groups representing 
business, labor, consumers, minorities, and the rural poor.
  Responding to that broad support, more than 30 Senators and 80 
Representatives cosponsored my bill or the House companion measure 
offered by Mr. Terry of Nebraska and Mr. Stupak of Michigan last 
Congress. And the Senate Commerce Committee approved my bill on a 
strong bipartisan vote.
  Today, I am reintroducing the Rural Universal Service Equity Act, 
along with 19 of my colleagues. This legislation would guarantee a 
fairer, more targeted distribution of the non-rural-carrier account by 
requiring allocations to be based on actual community needs, not an 
arbitrary mathematical formula.
  Beyond basic fairness for the majority of rural America, there are at 
least two additional reasons to enact this legislation.
  First, it will help overcome the ``digital divide'' between urban and 
rural America, and prevent it from growing worse. As long as the 
current rules remain in place, the majority of rural communities and 
the telephone companies that serve them will suffer a significant 
competitive disadvantage in today's digital economy.
  Second, the bill will fix this program while keeping a tight rein on 
USF expenditures. My legislation would redistribute existing funds more 
fairly, without imposing any additional burdens on the USF or requiring 
increased federal spending or revenues.
  Finally, my bill would not interfere with important efforts to fix 
other serious problems in the Universal Service Fund. We all know the 
USF must be modernized and reformed to reflect the challenges and 
technologies of the 21st Century.
  But the broader USF reform debate is likely to be contentious and 
protracted. In the meantime, we should be able to correct a shameful 
inequity in a program that is intended to benefit the majority of rural 
Americans. And we should do it as soon as possible.
  Once again I thank my colleagues and friends across America who have 
helped in this effort to date, and I call upon all members of the 
Senate to become cosponsors of the Rural Universal Service Equity Act. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 284

       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 ``Rural Universal Service 
     Equity Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Federal Communications Commission's high-cost model 
     support program for certain carriers provides no Federal 
     support to 40 States.
       (2) Federal universal service support should be calculated 
     and targeted to small geographic regions within a State to 
     provide greater assistance to the rural consumers most in 
     need of support.
       (3) Local telephone competition and emerging technologies 
     are threatening the viability of Federal universal service 
     support.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To begin consideration of universal service reform.
       (2) To spread the benefits of the existing Federal high-
     cost model support mechanism more equitably across the 
     nation.

     SEC. 3. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON NEED TO REFORM HIGH-
                   COST SUPPORT MECHANISM.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the need to reform the high-cost support mechanism 
     for rural, insular, and high-cost areas. As part of the 
     report, the Comptroller General shall provide an overview and 
     discuss whether--
       (1) existing Federal and State high-cost support mechanisms 
     ensure rate comparability between urban and rural areas;
       (2) the Federal Communications Commission and the States 
     have taken the necessary steps to remove implicit support;
       (3) the existing high-cost support mechanism has affected 
     the development of local competition in urban and rural 
     areas; and
       (4) amendments to section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) are necessary to preserve and advance 
     universal service.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT FOR HIGH-
                   COST AREAS.

       Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     254) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(m) Universal Service Support for High-cost Areas.--
       ``(1) Calculating support.--In calculating Federal 
     universal service support for eligible telecommunications 
     carriers that serve rural, insular, and high-cost areas, the 
     Commission shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), revise 
     the Commission's support mechanism for high-cost areas to 
     provide support to each wire center in which the incumbent 
     local exchange carrier's average cost per line for such wire 
     center exceeds the national average cost per line by such 
     amount as the Commission determines appropriate for the 
     purpose of ensuring the equitable distribution of universal 
     service support throughout the United States.
       ``(2) Hold harmless support.--In implementing this 
     subsection, the Commission shall ensure that no State 
     receives less Federal support calculated under paragraph (1) 
     than the State would have received, up to 10 percent of the 
     total support distributed, under the Commission's support 
     mechanism for high-cost areas as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(3) Limitation on total support to be provided.--The 
     total amount of support for all States, as calculated under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), shall be equivalent to the total 
     support calculated under the Commission's support mechanism 
     for high-cost areas as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(4) Construction of limitation.--The limitation in 
     paragraph (3) shall not be construed to preclude fluctuations 
     in support on the basis of changes in the data used to make 
     such calculations.
       ``(5) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, the Commission 
     shall complete the actions (including prescribing or amending 
     regulations) necessary to implement the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `Commission's support mechanism for high-cost areas' means 
     section 54.309 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations and 
     the regulations referred to in such section.''.

     SEC. 5. NO EFFECT ON RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the 
     support provided to an eligible telecommunications carrier 
     under section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 214(e)) that is a rural telephone company (as defined 
     in section 3 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 153)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dayton, 
        Mr. Levin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, 
        and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 286. A bill to amend section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 regarding the Federal Pell Grant maximum amount; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise and am joined by my colleagues 
Senators Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Landrieu, 
Dayton, Levin, Lautenberg, Inouye,

[[Page S987]]

Corzine, Durbin and Akaka to introduce legislation to amend the Higher 
Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and 
middle-income students by raising the authorized maximum Pell Grant to 
$11,600 within five years. This bill has the strong support of the 
Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, 
colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education.
  Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former 
colleague, I Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest 
source of Federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- 
and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or 
not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a 
difference as they used to.
  In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the 
average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. 
It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and 
about 40 percent at private universities. In 2003, the average Pell 
Grant covered 32 percent of tuition, room and board at community 
colleges, 23 percent of the total charges at public universities, and 9 
percent of total charges at private universities. That's not just a 
drop, it's a free-fall.
  For low- and middle-income families, the cost of college also has 
increased significantly as a percentage of income. College is getting 
farther and farther out of reach for an entire generation of students.
  As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to 
attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever-
increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants. This increases the 
cost of attendance for these students even more, and in many cases, 
keeps them from going to college at all.
  For four years now, the Administration has not raised the maximum 
Pell Grant. On top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to 
meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, they have 
left even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and 
want to go on to college. If we're serious about leaving no child 
behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity 
for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the 
Pell program.
  It has been said that investing in a student's future is investing in 
our Nation's future. We can start investing in our Nation's future by 
supporting this bill to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to 
$11,600. This bill won't bring the Pell Grant's purchasing power back 
to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend 
to continue my efforts on this matter throughout this Congress. I hope 
that my colleagues will join me.
  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. 286

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

     SECTION 1. FEDERAL PELL GRANT MAXIMUM AMOUNT.

       Section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1070a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amount of 
     the Federal Pell Grant for a student eligible under this part 
     shall be--
       ``(i) $7,600 for academic year 2005-2006;
       ``(ii) $8,600 for academic year 2006-2007;
       ``(iii) $9,600 for academic year 2007-2008;
       ``(iv) $10,600 for academic year 2008-2009; and
       ``(v) $11,600 for academic year 2009-2010,

     less an amount equal to the amount determined to be the 
     expected family contribution with respect to that student for 
     that year.''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) (as amended by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(B) If the Secretary determines that the increase from 
     one academic year to the next in the amount of the maximum 
     Federal Pell Grant authorized under subparagraph (A) does not 
     increase students' purchasing power (relative to the cost of 
     attendance at an institution of higher education) by not less 
     than 5 percentage points, then the amount of the maximum 
     Federal Pell Grant authorized under subparagraph (A) for the 
     academic year for which the determination is made shall be 
     increased by an amount sufficient to achieve such a 5 
     percentage point increase.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 287. A bill to require the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic economic modeling in the 
preparation of budgetary estimates of proposed changes in Federal 
revenue law; to the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
require the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget 
Office to use dynamic scoring, in addition to traditional static 
scoring, when estimating the effects of tax policy changes.
  For too long, Congress has debated changes to the tax code without 
the benefit of knowing how those changes might affect the Federal 
Government's revenue and the overall economy. I have believed that 
Washington, DC should consider the dynamic effect of tax cuts ever 
since I was first elected to Congress. This is why I am introducing 
this legislation today and why I first introduced this bill back in 
2003.
  On January 24, 2005, The Wall Street Journal published an article 
that explained the need for dynamic scoring. I agree with the article: 
certain tax cuts can stimulate our Nation's economy, and in turn, 
increase the Federal Government's revenue. What the article explains is 
that a dollar in tax cuts does not necessarily result in a dollar of 
lost revenue. The right type of tax cut will encourage growth and job 
creation and will expand the economy. This expansion will in turn 
increase tax revenue. I would ask unanimous consent that the text of 
that article be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2005]

                            Gaining Capital

       Some people continue to believe, or at least still assert, 
     that tax rates don't influence taxpayer behavior all that 
     much. We therefore direct their attention to the Treasury 
     Department's latest historical data on revenues from taxes on 
     capital gains.
       The numbers look like a 25-year demonstration of the Laffer 
     Curve in action. Taxes paid on capital gains have been highly 
     responsive to the maximum capital gains tax rate. Especially 
     notable is how, over the years, capital gains realizations 
     and the taxes paid on those gains have tended to increase in 
     the years following a cut in the capital gains tax rate.
       The reductions highlighted in the chart include the famous 
     William Steiger tax rate cut that passed Congress in late 
     1978 over Jimmy Carter's objections, the Reagan tax cut 
     passed in 1981, and the cut that was part of the Clinton-
     Gingrich balanced budget deal of 1997. All of those 
     reductions caused taxpayers to cash in more of their gains 
     and thus yielded revenue windfalls for the federal Treasury 
     in succeeding years.
       On the other hand, the capital gains tax increase of 1986--
     which moved the rate back up to 28% from 20%--proved to be a 
     revenue disaster. Taxes paid on long-term capital gains 
     (those typically held longer than one year) fell off a cliff 
     to $33.7 billion in 1987 from $52.9 billion a year earlier. 
     And they stayed at close to that mediocre lower level for 
     nearly another decade. In other words, higher rates didn't do 
     anyone any good, not even the politicians who thought they'd 
     be getting more tax revenue to spend.
       We aren't asserting that tax-rate changes have been the 
     only factors influencing revenue changes. The performance of 
     the broader economy and the stock market have also mattered a 
     great deal. Capital gains revenues boomed in the late 1990s 
     after the 1997 rate cut, but they fell abruptly with the 
     bursting of the dot-com and tech bubbles in 2001.
       The evidence is overwhelming, however, that lower rates 
     induced more taxpayers to realize their capital gains, and 
     thus produced more tax revenue despite the lower rates. The 
     top capital gains rate was cut again in 2003, to 15%, and it 
     is likely that Treasury will also report an increase in 
     revenues in that year and in 2004 as the stock-market 
     rebounded smartly.
       In each of these episodes, we should add, Congress's Joint 
     Tax Committee predicted more or less the opposite. Wedded to 
     its static models that underestimate the impact of behavioral 
     incentives, Joint Tax predicted revenue losses from tax-rate 
     cuts and revenue gains from tax-rate increases. In recent 
     years Joint Tax has finally acknowledged some ``unlocking'' 
     effect on capital gains realizations from lower rates, but it 
     still refuses to recognize any revenue impact from faster 
     economic growth or from a stronger stock-market that tax 
     reductions on capital help to promote.
       The refusal to take control of Joint Tax has been a major 
     failure of the GOP Congress, and should be a priority as it 
     contemplates tax reform that President Bush has said must be 
     ``revenue neutral.'' Republicans will have a much better 
     chance of

[[Page S988]]

     passing a pro-growth tax reform with lower rates if they have 
     a revenue-estimating bureaucracy that is pledged to accuracy 
     instead of to its old habits. Ways and Means Chairman Bill 
     Thomas, take note.

  Mr. ENSIGN. The current method of assessing proposed changes in tax 
policy, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes have no effect on 
how taxpayers work, save, and invest their money. This model implies 
that tax policy changes have no effect on our economy, never produce 
higher or lower revenues, and never cause resources to shift within our 
federal budget. This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a 
huge impact on our economy.
  The idea that tax relief and investment incentives will strengthen 
our economy is not a new one. On April 15, 1986, President Reagan spoke 
about the positive effects tax relief can have on economic growth. He 
stated: ``whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or 
incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy into a 
new era of growth and opportunity. . . .''
  What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. 
Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more 
Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides 
economic growth. When we draft legislation, we should understand not 
only the cost of tax relief to the federal budget but also the benefits 
that tax relief provides to the economy. To create jobs. And to 
ultimately increase tax revenue for the federal government in the long 
run.
  Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White 
House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time for 
Congress to make choices with a better understanding of the real-world 
implications of those choices. This will better enable us to determine 
how much relief we can afford to give to American families.
  The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside-
the-Beltway squabble but as I have said today, the decision on how to 
estimate revenues does have important real-world implications. For 
example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier to 
implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the 
pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive effect on 
our economy.
  Today, American families face the challenge of providing food, 
clothing, and shelter for their children; saving for their children's 
education; and paying for health care. When government raises taxes, we 
force parents to work even harder so that they can meet these 
obligations and have money left over to enjoy a family vacation or put 
money away for their retirement. I believe in the American family 
because it is these families that make America great. I trust the 
American family and believe that they can far better take care of their 
needs when Congress demands less of what they earn.
  I should clarify that this legislation does not negate Congress' use 
of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply directs 
CBO and the Joint Tax Committee to develop both static and dynamic 
scoring estimates for Congress to consider. This will create a system 
that will allow Congress a side-by-side analysis of both scoring 
methods so that Congress can better make decisions regarding tax policy 
that will grow our economy and create jobs.
  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. 287

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

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that it is necessary to ensure 
     that Congress is presented with reliable information from the 
     Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation as to the dynamic macroeconomic feedback effects to 
     changes in Federal law and the probable behavioral responses 
     of taxpayers, businesses, and other parties to such changes. 
     Specifically, the Congress intends that, while not excluding 
     any other estimating method, dynamic estimating techniques 
     shall also be used in estimating the fiscal impact of 
     proposals to change Federal laws, to the extent that data are 
     available to permit estimates to be made in such a manner.

     SEC. 2. ESTIMATES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION.

       In addition to any other estimates it may prepare of any 
     proposed change in Federal revenue law, a fiscal estimate 
     shall be prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation of each 
     such proposed change on the basis of assumptions that 
     estimate the probable behavioral responses of personal and 
     business taxpayers and other relevant entities to that 
     proposed change and the dynamic macroeconomic feedback 
     effects of that proposed change. The preceding sentence shall 
     apply only to a proposed change that the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation determines, pursuant to a static fiscal estimate, 
     has a fiscal impact in excess of $250,000,000 in any fiscal 
     year.

     SEC. 3. ESTIMATES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

       In addition to any other estimates it may prepare of any 
     proposed change in Federal revenue law, a fiscal estimate 
     shall be prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of each 
     such proposed change on the basis of assumptions that 
     estimate the probable behavioral responses of personal and 
     business taxpayers and other relevant entities to that 
     proposed change and the dynamic macroeconomic feedback 
     effects of that proposed change. The preceding sentence shall 
     apply only to a proposed change that the Congressional Budget 
     Office determines, pursuant to a static fiscal estimate, has 
     a fiscal impact in excess of $250,000,000 in any fiscal year.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF ASSUMPTIONS.

       Any report to Congress or the public made by the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation or the Congressional Budget Office that 
     contains an estimate made under this Act of the effect that 
     any legislation will have on revenues shall be accompanied 
     by--
       (1) a written statement fully disclosing the economic, 
     technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in 
     producing that estimate, and
       (2) the static fiscal estimate made with respect to the 
     same legislation and a written statement of the economic, 
     technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in 
     producing that estimate.

     SEC. 5. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.

       In performing the tasks specified in this Act, the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office 
     may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter 
     into contracts with universities or other private or public 
     organizations to perform such estimations or to develop 
     protocols and models for making such estimates.

      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 289. A bill to authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 
for mental health courts through fiscal year 2011; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy 
and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's 
Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses 
the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice 
system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their 
special needs.
  My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years 
ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in 
Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then--
and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public 
service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have 
become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our 
Nation.
  A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all 
inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally 
ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 
seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, 
alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services 
or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many 
of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and 
jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home 
to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care 
institution in our country.
  How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too 
often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are 
arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their 
sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their 
underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves 
right back in the system only a short time later after committing 
additional--often more serious--crimes.
  Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections 
spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by 
these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill

[[Page S989]]

offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. 
However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't 
necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate 
treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the 
offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our 
police and corrections officials.
  That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced 
America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to 
identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our 
justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in 
obtaining the treatment they need.
  This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the 
country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take 
steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally 
ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The 
legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill 
would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities 
develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are 
specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively 
involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental 
illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local 
courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution 
for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. 
These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination 
between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them 
together to work within the criminal justice system.
  To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these 
mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized 
professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public 
defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. 
The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all 
outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the 
mental health court.
  Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case 
referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally 
ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court 
judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is 
voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health 
Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court.

  For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, 
attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of 
treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The 
defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. 
The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any 
failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the 
defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health 
courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than 
might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and 
monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental 
heath courts function similarly to drug courts.
  Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard 
in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real 
opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A 
judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment--
rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for 
rehabilitation to these defendants.
  The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that 
we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these 
programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board 
which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its 
program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant 
under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project 
Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus 
on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with 
Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was 
the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed 
individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric 
appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a 
potential mentor for other program participants.
  Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health 
courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. 
Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to 
cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement 
agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties 
posed by mental illnesses.
  Mental health courts offer a solution.
  Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure 
their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual 
ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful 
embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of 
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. 289

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 1001(a)(20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(20)) is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal years 2001 through 2004'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Talent, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Vitter, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 290. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income certain hazard mitigation assistance; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
concerning a critical issue that affects many States--disaster 
assistance. Last year was one of the worst hurricane seasons that 
Florida had seen in recent years. The Sunshine State was battered by 
four hurricanes in a six week period. Many residents of Florida had to 
evacuate more than three times during last year's hurricane season only 
to return home and find their homes leveled, their crops uprooted, 
their neighborhoods flooded, and their dreams shattered.
  In my home State of Missouri, we are no strangers to natural 
disasters. Located smack in the middle of Tornado Alley, Missouri has 
been hit by some of the largest storms in U.S. history. In May of 2003, 
a string of tornadoes ripped through the western part of the state 
causing major damage and devastation.
  With two big rivers--the Mississippi and the Missouri--we have also 
seen our fair share of flooding through the years, including flash 
flooding. I will never forget when the Mississippi River breached its 
banks in 1993--one of the most devastating floods in U.S. history. Of 
the nine Midwestern States affected, the State of Missouri was the 
hardest hit and State officials estimate that damages totaled $3 
billion.
  One specific example of the benefits of disaster mitigation in flash-
flood situations comes to mind when I think of the City of Union, 
located about 45 minutes from St. Louis, where many of the residents 
suffered tremendous damage from a severe flash flood in May of 2000. 
After the flood, the City of Union applied to the State of Missouri 
Emergency Management Agency to seek help in a demolition and 
acquisition project. With the mitigation grant money, 17 properties 
were acquired in residential areas with substantial damage. These 
properties are now deed restricted for ``open space,'' which will 
prevent future development and the potential for flash flood related 
deaths in that area because many of the homes and people will no longer 
be in harm's way. This is an excellent example of the value of disaster 
and mitigation money invested by the Federal, State and local 
governments.
  The disaster mitigation program has also been used to provide grant 
money to an individual, as opposed to a municipality. In some 
instances, these homeowners may be located in areas highly susceptible 
to tornadoes. Often

[[Page S990]]

times, disaster mitigation grants have been issued to individual 
homeowners enabling them to build storm shelters underneath their 
homes, ultimately saving lives.
  Over the years, the State of Missouri has worked with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to build structures that prevent 
flooding and other damage from occurring when natural disasters strike. 
Time and time again, FEMA has come to the rescue by establishing 
funding for disaster relief and mitigation activities within the State 
of Missouri and in other states across the country.
  Having served as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, which until recently 
oversaw FEMA, I know first hand the value of the agency's disaster 
mitigation grant programs--the Hazards Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP), 
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation 
Assistance (FMA) program. Designed to manage future emergencies, these 
programs have been essential to countless communities, and without 
them, thousands of lives would be in jeopardy.
  Last Congress, some very disturbing news was brought to my attention. 
According to a June 2004 legal memorandum issued by the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS), FEMA mitigation grants may be subject to income 
taxation. While some may argue that this is merely the IRS's 
interpretation of the statute, it is clearly the position the IRS 
intends to take against American taxpayers whose only recourse will be 
to fight the agency in court.
  Let me tell you what this means for the American taxpayer. In my 
example of Union, Missouri, it is the individuals whose homes have been 
purchased by the city who ultimately will be forced to pay taxes on the 
proceeds of the buyout. For the homeowner building a storm shelter with 
grant money, he or she might be taxed upon receipt of the grant.
  I must say that I am absolutely stunned by this determination by the 
IRS!! How in the world could the IRS possibly think that Congress 
intended to tax these types of grants to prevent natural disasters, 
especially when we went out of our way to ensure that disaster-relief 
payments to individuals recovering from a hurricane, flood, tornado or 
other natural disaster are not subject to income taxes?
  Today, I am offering a bill that will stop the IRS in its tracks and 
prevent the taxation of disaster mitigation grants. This language will 
ensure that any federal grants to construct or modify property to 
mitigate future disaster damage will not be deemed to be income by the 
IRS's tortured reasoning. This bill will ensure that any grants 
currently out there, especially in light of the current hurricanes that 
have happened, are not subject to tax. In addition, there should be no 
inference by this legislation that Congress intended such grants to be 
taxable prior to the effective date of this legislation.
  Why is this important? Why am I out here today? Because the Missouri 
and Mississippi Rivers rise, because tornadoes will ravage through the 
state once again, and because flash flooding can decimate an entire 
community. The last thing Americans who are working to prevent such 
potential destruction need is for government-grant funding to be 
subject to tax. My bill ensures that such taxes do not see the light of 
day.
  I thank the original cosponsors of this bill, Senators Talent, 
Inhofe, Vitter, Conrad, Landrieu, and Nelson, for their support, and I 
urge my other colleagues to join us. Finally, Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill and a letter from the Stafford Act 
Coalition be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 290

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

     SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR CERTAIN DISASTER 
                   MITIGATION PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to disaster relief payments) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Certain Disaster Mitigation Payments.--Gross income 
     shall not include the value of any amount received directly 
     or indirectly as payment or benefit by the owner of any 
     property for hazard mitigation with respect to the property 
     pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act or the National Flood Insurance 
     Act.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 
     2004.
                                  ____

     Hon. Christopher ``Kit'' Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: The undersigned organizations are 
     writing to you as members of the Stafford Act Coalition to 
     support your legislation to prevent taxation of federal 
     assistance given to disaster victims for mitigation of future 
     disasters. The Stafford Act Coalition represents a wide 
     variety of groups interested in mitigation activities and has 
     been the leading coalition working with Congress on issues 
     related to disaster mitigation for over five years. This bill 
     would make clear that federal disaster mitigation funds 
     should not be taxable. Additionally, this legislation has 
     implications for upcoming hazard mitigation deadlines 
     associated with the disaster aid packages for recent 
     hurricanes and also for tax returns for 2004 that taxpayers 
     will begin filing in January 2005. We believe urgent action 
     must be taken on this bill as soon as possible, especially 
     given the dramatic disasters that the nation has faced in the 
     last year.
       The Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling on June 29, 
     2004 finding that disaster mitigation funds are taxable as 
     income when used to reduce private property damage. Up until 
     this ruling, disaster victims who took advantage of 
     mitigation opportunities to prevent future losses were not 
     taxed by the federal government. This recent ruling will 
     create a disincentive that will discourage disaster victims 
     from taking advantage of steps to reduce the costs of future 
     disasters, protect property and prevent the loss of lives. 
     With so many open presidentially declared disasters, the 
     matter requires immediate reversal and clarification by 
     Congress.
       Your legislation would resolve the problems created by 
     taxing mitigation assistance. According to the Department of 
     the Treasury, some state and local governments are already 
     reporting that disaster victims are declining assistance 
     because the assistance will be taxable. As a result, the 
     National Flood Insurance Fund and the Disaster Relief Fund 
     will continue to be burdened by losses that may have been 
     preventable with appropriate mitigation.
       The active, on-going mitigation programs involved are all 
     administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     (FEMA), now part of the Department of Homeland Security 
     (DHS). These programs include the Flood Mitigation Assistance 
     Program (FMA), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) and 
     the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The long term 
     benefits of mitigation include avoidance or minimization of 
     public expenditures for recovery. The federal government's 
     disaster mitigation programs were established as well-
     conceived public policy to promote public safety, reduce loss 
     of life and reduce the costs to the taxpayers of disaster 
     response, especially repetitive disaster response. While 
     individual property owners may end up less vulnerable to 
     future damage, which the IRS determined to be equivalent to 
     income, projects are by regulation or statute required to be 
     cost-effective to the federal interest. Reducing damage to 
     private property will reduce use of the casualty loss 
     deduction which is a direct loss to the federal treasury. 
     Mitigation lessens the economic impact of disasters by 
     keeping businesses functioning and diminishing the effects on 
     local economies and jobs.
       Disaster mitigation programs assist citizens, businesses, 
     and communities to take such steps as elevating buildings in 
     floodplains, flood proofing, seismic reinforcement, 
     acquisitions or relocations, wind protections for roofs and 
     strengthening of window protections. It is contradictory to 
     put in place such programs which not only protect individual 
     properties, but surrounding properties and infrastructure and 
     then tax the individual property owner on this ``benefit'' 
     which extends well beyond that individual property owner. 
     Generally, what is taxable income for federal purposes is 
     also considered taxable income for state tax purposes, 
     increasing the adverse impact of the IRS ruling.
       If the federal government wishes its disaster mitigation 
     programs to truly reduce future losses, it must act to ensure 
     that mitigation funds are not taxed as income. The 
     undersigned groups understand that any mention of claiming 
     mitigation grant funds as income is certain to discourage 
     property owners and local governments from considering the 
     mitigation opportunities provided through the FMA, PDM and 
     HMGP programs. We urge you to find the earliest possible 
     opportunity to clarify the law. We hope to work with you to 
     ensure the immediate passage of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
       The Stafford Act Coalition, American Planning Association, 
     American Public Works Association, Association of State Flood 
     Plain Managers, Council of State Governments, International 
     Association of Emergency Managers, National Association of 
     Development Organizations, National Association of Flood and 
     Stormwater Agencies, National Emergency Management 
     Association, National League of Cities, National

[[Page S991]]

     Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Wildlife 
     Federation.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in Louisiana, hurricanes and floods are 
as much a part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras. Twenty percent 
of the coastal zone of my State lies below sea level, including 80 
percent of our largest city New Orleans. Because of this our State has 
one of the finest and extensive levee systems in the world. Our 
communities have well developed flood plain management plans. We have 
built flood walls to protect neighborhoods from rising waters and 
homeowners in flood zones have built their houses on stilts.
  Even with all of this preparation, flood damage does occur. It is 
estimated that Louisiana suffered more than $47 million in losses from 
flooding in 2003. To address this, 377,000 property owners participate 
in the National Flood Insurance Program--a program that is a real 
godsend to the people of my State. This program is fully financed by 
insurance premiums paid by property owners to cover damage to their 
homes and businesses as a result of flooding. The program also provides 
funding for property owners to flood-proof their homes under the 
mitigation grant program. They can use these grants to put their homes 
on stilts, improve drainage, and obtain waterproofing materials.
  All the people in my state ask for is a warning and an opportunity to 
protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from these 
disasters. Through the state-of-the-art systems developed by the 
National Weather Service, we can get a warning about a hurricane. We 
have sophisticated radar to track these storms as they move through the 
Gulf of Mexico, or up the East Coast. When a Category 4 is coming we 
can prepare and pray.
  But they did not have any warning that the Federal government--more 
specifically the IRS--would begin to tax the money they received to 
prevent damages to their property from hurricanes and floods. Yet that 
has not stopped the IRS from making and implementing one of the most 
misguided and unfair decisions.
  Let me be clear about what this has meant for people in my State. I 
heard from one man who told me that he was going to be liable for tax 
on an additional $218,000 in income for grant money used to do 
mitigation work on his home. He said he would have to work until he was 
90 years old in order to pay off the tax bill.
  What is worse, is that this misguided decision by the IRS will hit 
all natural disaster mitigation assistance covered by the Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation Program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and the 
National Flood Insurance Programs. Instead of protecting their 
properties, the IRS decision will force people to take risks that they 
will not be hit by a disaster.
  I applaud my colleague from Missouri for introducing this legislation 
to fix this problem and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This is 
not a regional, special-interest bill. Natural disasters can strike 
almost anywhere at any time. If your citizens have used a federal 
program to help make their property safer, the tax man will come for 
them too. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 296. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Hollings 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with 
Senator Snowe to reauthorize funding for the Hollings Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership. This successful Commerce Department program, 
based in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a 
nationwide network of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
Centers working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 
States. These local centers have played a critical role in helping our 
manufacturers turn out the most advanced products, using cutting edge 
technology and processes, to prevent these firms from being forced out 
of the global marketplace.
  My State of Wisconsin is a great manufacturing State. Small- and 
medium-sized manufacturers and a few larger concerns make us the State 
economy most dependent on manufacturing--save Indiana. Thus, I am 
keenly aware of the devastating job losses experienced by American 
manufacturers. In Wisconsin alone, we lost more than 90,000 
manufacturing jobs over the last four years.
  While 2004 brought encouraging news in which we saw a net gain of 3.1 
percent or 15,400 manufacturing jobs in my State, this pace of economic 
growth will never bring us back to where we were before.
  That is why I am committed to doing all I can to help our 
manufacturers. And that is why I am such a strong supporter of the MEP 
program, one of the only Federal programs which has provided tangible 
assistance to the manufacturing sector to help companies stay in 
business and retain jobs. The MEP program served 18,422 manufacturers 
in fiscal year 2003 alone, and over the life of the program has 
assisted more than 184,000 firms across the Nation.
  MEP's top areas of assistance are process improvement, quality 
inspection, business system and management, human resources, plant 
layout and manufacturing cells and product development. MEP streamlines 
operations, integrates new technologies, shortens production times and 
lowers costs, leading to improved efficiency by offering resources to 
manufacturers, including organized workshops and consulting projects. 
MEP removes the drag on profits and maximizes the potential of our 
manufacturing firms.
  Wisconsin is the home to two MEP centers which have both had a 
significant impact on the productivity of companies throughout the 
State. Since 1996, Wisconsin MEP has helped over 1,300 Wisconsin 
manufacturers improve their productivity and profitability. Over that 
time WMEP customers have reported a positive impact of nearly $400 
million in improvements attributable to the assistance provided by MEP. 
And, since 1994, the Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center, 
targeting the more rural northwestern part of the State, has provided 
over 3,189 technical assistance activities to over 942 companies, 
created or retained 1,979 jobs, and achieved client-reported impacts of 
over $132 million.
  One of the novel aspects of the MEP program is that it is a Federal-
State-private partnership. Federal funding leverages State and private 
funding. Manufacturers pay reduced fees for the services and States 
match the Federal funding. In many cases, the Federal component is only 
one-third of the funding for the program.
  Although the MEP program has broad bipartisan support, with 55 
senators writing a letter in support of the program last year, we have 
had to struggle in recent years to ensure that MEP centers receive the 
funding they deserve. In the last two years, the Administration has 
proposed deep reductions in the program that would have forced MEP 
centers around the country to close. In fiscal year 2004, despite 
Senate support for full funding for the MEP Program, funding was 
reduced by 60 percent from $106 million to $39.6 million. As a result, 
58 MEP centers closed and staff was reduced by 15 percent. Working with 
several other Senators, we succeeded in having amendments adopted on 
the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization and appropriations bills to 
permit and direct the Commerce Department to reprogram unobligated 
funds to the MEP program in fiscal year 2004 to keep the MEP network 
intact. Fortunately, in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations 
bill, MEP received $109 million and was renamed the Hollings MEP 
program, in recognition of the strong support Senator Hollings gave 
this program during his tenure in the Senate.
  Next week the President will be sending us his proposed budget for 
fiscal year 2006. I am deeply concerned at reports that indicate that 
the Administration intends to propose yet again to cut this vital 
program. We have introduced this legislation today as a sign that there 
continues to be bipartisan support for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership. I hope that these reports were incorrect and that the 
Administration recognizes that we cannot abandon our small- and medium-
sized manufacturers. They are the key to economic growth, good paying 
jobs, and a healthy balance of trade.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S992]]

                                 S. 296

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE HOLLINGS 
                   MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Amounts for Fiscal Years 2005 Through 2008.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce 
     for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program 
     of the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (4) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (b) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``Hollings Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership Program'' means the program of Hollings 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership carried out by the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology under section 
     26 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 278l), as provided in part 292 of title 15, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

                          ____________________