[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.
____________________