[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4216-4227]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. McCain, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Specter, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 582. A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 
to provide States with the option to cover certain legal immigrants 
under the Medicaid and State children's health insurance program; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senators Chafee, 
McCain, Feinstein, Jeffords, Wellstone, Murray, Kennedy, Collins, 
Specter, Schumer, Clinton, and myself to introduce the Immigrant 
Children's Health Improvement Act of 2001.
  This bill will give States the option to provide Medicaid and CHIP 
coverage to immigrant children and pregnant women who arrived legally 
in this country after August 22, 1996. That is the date Congress passed 
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act--
commonly known as welfare reform.
  The goal of that legislation was to encourage self-sufficiency in 
adults. But it also affected children, including immigrants, citizens, 
and those not yet born. The legislation cut off government-supported 
health care for all legal immigrants, regardless of their ages or 
circumstances.
  Census data released last week offered good news on the number of 
uninsured people in America. The data shows that the number of 
Americans without health insurance fell from 44.3 million to 42.6 
million in 1999. This is the first decline since 1987. But the news is 
not good for everyone who works hard in this country, who plays by the 
rules, who tries to build a better life for themselves and their 
families.
  What was not in the headlines is the fact that the proportion of 
immigrant children who are uninsured remains extremely high.
  A new report by the Urban Institute shows that in the last year, 
nearly half of low-income immigrant children in America had no health-
insurance coverage. In my State of Florida, that ratio is nearly three 
to one. This is just one of many reports that show that in our zeal to 
discourage dependency in adults, we unintentionally punished children.
  A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that the 
percentage of low-income immigrant children in publicly-funded 
coverage--which was low even before welfare reform--has fallen 
substantially.
  Florida is home to more than half a million uninsured children, many 
of whom are in this country legally or are citizens whose immigrant 
parents are ineligible for coverage and so think their children are 
similarly barred.
  Under this bill, States have the option of taking steps to change 
that by eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as a 
cutoff date for allowing children to get health care. Giving States the 
option of providing this coverage to legal immigrant children and 
pregnant women would cover more than 200,000 people a year. States have 
asked for this option. Many are already trying to provide coverage but 
can't make up the holes in their budget.
  In their 2001 Winter Policy Report, the National Governors' 
Association endorsed this commonsense policy proposal. The National 
Council of State Legislators has also endorsed this bill. More than 200 
respected public-interest groups including Catholic Charities, the 
National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Public 
Hospitals, the National Immigration Law Center, the Children's Defense 
Fund, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all joined together 
in support of the bill. Beginning today and for months to come, these 
organizations will be holding events to rally behind this and other 
legislation that supports the goal of providing healthy solutions for 
hard-working American families.
  Under this umbrella, Senators Kennedy and Jeffords will be 
introducing legislation to restore food stamps to legal immigrants and 
Representatives Levin and Morella will be introducing a bill to protect 
immigrant women from domestic violence.
  Passage of the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act is an 
important step in revisiting the welfare reform legislation.
  What we now realize, years after passing that landmark law, is that 
legal immigrant children are, as much as citizen children, the next 
generation of Americans. Providing Medicaid and CHIP to legal immigrant 
children is critical in order to guarantee that generation can be 
healthy and productive members of their adopted country.
  We call upon Congress and the President to act this year and pass 
this important bill.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Graham, Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Clinton):

[[Page 4217]]

  S. 583. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve 
nutrition assistance for working families and the elderly, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Graham, Senator Chafee, and I introduce the 
bipartisan ``Nutrition Assistance for Working Families and Seniors 
Act.'' Our goal is to repair specific holes that time has worn in the 
nation's core nutrition safety net--the Food Stamp Program.
  Hunger is a silent crisis affecting families all across America. No 
corner of our land is immune from this tragedy.
  The Nation can well afford to ensure that the average food stamp 
benefit of 79 cents per meal is available to everyone who truly needs 
it. In a time of economic prosperity, the moral imperative to feed the 
hungry may be clearest. But in a time of economic uncertainty, the need 
to feed the hungry should be clearest.
  The bottom line is that too many working families and seniors in 
America have trouble putting enough food on the table. On February 26, 
2001, the New York Times included a compelling account of the 
difficulties faced by the Payne family from Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Payne 
states that ``it's difficult to work at a grocery store all day, 
looking at all the food I can't buy, so I imagine filling up my cart 
with one of those big orders and bringing home enough food for all my 
kids.'' She and her husband, a factory worker, routinely go without 
dinner to be sure that their four children have enough to eat. The 
Payne family was among thousands of working families that have recently 
turned to emergency food pantries and soup kitchens in search of help. 
The Payne family did not know that they were eligible for food stamps.
  Nationwide, participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 34 
percent since 1996, four times faster than the decline in the poverty 
rate. This means that over 2 million fewer people who live in poverty 
are accessing food stamps today. Over a quarter of the reduction in 
food stamp participation between 1994 and 1998 resulted from welfae 
reform and its elimination of food stamp eligibility for legal 
immigrants, both by directly rendering legal immigrants ineligible for 
food stamps, and by discouraging their U.S. citizen children from 
accessing food stamps.
  The results are predictable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
determined that 4.9 million adults and 2.6 million children lived in 
households that experienced hunger during 1999. The Urban Institute 
finds that 33 percent of former welfare recipients have to skip or cut 
meals due to lack of food.
  The most vulnerable people among us--recent immigrants, children, and 
the elderly--are the ones who face the greatest difficulty. Republicans 
and Democrats agree that we need to work together in good faith to 
deliver senior citizens from having to choose between heating and 
eating, and from having to choose between paying for their prescription 
drugs or for their groceries. There is also widespread agreement that 
more must be done to end childhood hunger. A July 1999 General 
Accounting Office study concludes, ``Children's participation in the 
Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children 
living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and 
assistance.''
  Sadly, the enormity of this crisis is confirmed by a major study 
released today by the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's 
Families, which focuses upon the impact that welfare reform has had on 
the children of immigrants. The report finds that 80 percent of the 
children of immigrants are United States citizens, but the immigrant 
status of parents prevents these citizen children from receiving the 
aid they need. According to the Urban Institute, 24 percent of children 
of immigrants live in poverty compared to 16 percent of children of 
citizens, and 37 percent of children of immigrants live in households 
that have difficulty putting enough food on the table each month, 
compared to 27 percent of children of citizens.
  The report also shows that access to public benefits makes a 
difference for immigrant families. Largely because Massachusetts pays 
to provide food stamps to all legal immigrants, food insecurity rates 
there are relatively similar for children of immigrants and children of 
citizens 28 percent of immigrant children versus 22 percent of native 
children). Texas provides no such benefit, however, and this fact is 
reflected in its food insecurity rates. Over 49 percent of children of 
immigrants lack secure access to adequate nutrition in Texas, compared 
to a third of children of citizens.
  While hunger and malnutrition are serious problems for people of all 
ages, their effects are particularly damaging to children. Hungry and 
undernourished children are more likely to become anemic and to suffer 
from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more 
likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When 
children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not 
address this silent crisis, our considerable investments in education 
and early learning activities will not have the full positive impact 
that they should. Clearly more must be done for both the children of 
citizens and the children of immigrants.
  A strong Food Stamp Program is essential to ensure that all people in 
America can get the food they need to stay healthy. In seven common 
sense steps, this bill reaches goals shared by Republicans and 
Democrats alike--promoting self-sufficiency, encouraging transitions 
from welfare to work, and eradicating hunger among children and 
seniors.
  First, this bill restores eligibility for food stamps to all legal 
immigrants, a matter of fundamental fairness and basic need. The Kaiser 
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured reports that immigrant 
families on average pay $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in 
local, state, and federal benefits over a lifetime. For 30 years prior 
to welfare reform, food stamps were available to legal immigrants, and 
as today's Urban Institute report confirms, legal immigrants are now 
among those most in need of nutritional assistance. Our laws recognize 
that legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health 
care, yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal immigrants 
are denied access to basic nutrition.
  The effort to prevent legal immigrants from accessing food stamps 
never made sense from a policy perspective, and I am pleased to see 
considerable bipartisan momentum building to restore eligibility. Our 
key allied in the effort to restore eligibility include the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
National Association of Counties, the National Black Caucus of State 
Legislators, the Hispanic Caucus, leaders of all major religious 
denominations, and over 1,400 immigration, hunger, and social justice 
organizations that are active in every state. Over twenty newspapers 
have published editorials urging restoration of food stamp eligibility 
to legal immigrants. With such strong and broad public support, I am 
hopeful that immigrants will not have to wait another year to have 
their access to basic nutrition restored.
  Second, this bill ends the child penalty under current food stamp 
law. Just as the marriage penalty in our tax code unfairly penalizes 
some couples, existing law unfairly limits nutritional assistance to 
some families with children. This bill fixes the problem by indexing 
the food stamp standard deduction to family size in a way that simply 
ensures that every family that is in deep poverty, with earnings under 
10 percent of the poverty limit, will receive the maximum current food 
stamp benefit regardless of family size. Over half of the benefit from 
this provision will go to working families.
  Third, this bill addresses a core nutritional concern of senior 
citizens and other low-income families on fixed incomes, many of whom 
qualify for the minimum food stamp benefit. The food stamp minimum 
benefit has remained at $10 since 1977. This bill raises the

[[Page 4218]]

minimum benefit to $25 over the course of five years, and then indexes 
it to inflation.
  Fourth, this bill ensures that food stamp law treats child support 
payments like income when calculating benefits, by disregarding 20 
percent of these payments in the benefit determinations. This measure 
is consistent with last year's overwhelming House approval of a plan to 
encourage states to pass more child support payments through to low-
income families. Parents who know that their children will directly 
benefit if they pay their child support are more likely to remain on 
the job, pay their child support, and, most importantly, remain 
involved with their children.
  Fifth, this bill gives states more options for helping families make 
the transition from welfare to work. Current food stamp law allows a 3-
month state option for a transitional food stamp benefit. This bill 
mirrors Medicaid's six-month Medicaid transitional benefit for food 
stamps, simplifying state recordkeeping, increasing state flexibility, 
and helping TANF families transition to work.
  Sixth, this bill improves access to food stamp information, helping 
to ensure that families like the Paynes are aware of the help that 
remains available to them. It helps rural families apply for food 
stamps using online and telephone systems, eliminating the need to 
travel to food stamp offices. It also supports stronger public-private 
partnerships that generate and distribute information about the 
nation's nutrition assistance program.
  Finally, this bill increases federal support for emergency food 
programs, 71 percent of which are operated by faith based 
organizations. Sharp increases in requests for help from food pantries 
and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year despite steep 
declines in food stamp participation. Many food banks find themselves 
unable to meet the increased requests for help. Nationally, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest have independently 
documented a 15 to 20 percent increase in needs over 1998. 79 percent 
of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Project Bread reported 
serving more working poor in 1998, and 72 percent reported helping more 
families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met 
without unnecessarily tapping Food Stamp resources, this bill increases 
funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program by 10 percent.
  The total cost of this bill amounts to about $2.75 billion over five 
years, which would increase the cost of the Food Stamp Program by about 
2 percent. This bill's cost is also modest in relation to the current 
ten-year non-Social surplus--it uses but 0.2 percent of the projected 
federal surplus.
  We've often heard that hunger has a cure. This is a call to action, 
not a truism, for the many people who have cooperated in developing 
this legislation. I'm proud to work with them for its prompt passage.
  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:

                                 S. 583

       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 ``Nutrition Assistance for 
     Working Families and Seniors Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS FOR LEGAL 
                   IMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Limited Eligibility of Qualified Aliens for Certain 
     Federal Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(a) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Federal programs'' 
     and inserting ``Federal program'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (D)--

       (I) by striking clause (ii); and
       (II) in clause (i)--
       (aa) by striking ``(i) SSI.--'' and all that follows 
     through ``paragraph (3)(A)'' and inserting the following:

       ``(i) In general.--With respect to the specified Federal 
     program described in paragraph (3)'';
       (bb) by redesignating subclauses (II) through (IV) as 
     clauses (ii) through (iv) and indenting appropriately;
       (cc) by striking ``subclause (I)'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
       (dd) in clause (iv) (as redesignated by item (bb)), by 
     striking ``this clause'' and inserting ``this subparagraph'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``paragraph (3)(A) 
     (relating to the supplemental security income program)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (F);

       (I) by striking ``Federal programs'' and inserting 
     ``Federal program'';
       (II) in clause (ii)(I)--

       (aa) by striking ``(I) in the case of the specified Federal 
     program described in paragraph (3)(A),''; and
       (bb) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and

       (III) by striking subclause (II);

       (v) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``Federal programs'' 
     and inserting ``Federal program'';
       (vi) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``paragraph (3)(A) 
     (relating to the supplemental security income program)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
       (vii) by striking subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K); and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``means any'' and all that follows through 
     ``The supplemental'' and inserting ``means the 
     supplemental''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 402(b)(2)(F) of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(F)) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (a)(3)(A)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(3)''.
       (b) Five-Year Limited Eligibility of Qualified Aliens for 
     Federal Means-Tested Public Benefit.--Section 403 of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(L) Assistance or benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``not apply'' and all that follows through 
     ``(1) an individual'' and inserting ``not apply to an 
     individual''; and
       (B) by striking ``; or'' and all that follows through 
     ``402(a)(3)(B)''.
       (c) Authority for States To Provide for Attribution of 
     Sponsor's Income and Resources to the Alien With Respect to 
     State Programs.--Section 422(b) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1632(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Programs comparable to assistance or benefits under 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).''.
       (d) Requirements for Sponsor's Affidavit of Support.--
     Section 423(d) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1183a note; 
     Public Law 104-193) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2011 et seq.), if a sponsor is unable to make the 
     reimbursement because the sponsor experiences hardship 
     (including bankruptcy, disability, and indigence) or if the 
     sponsor experiences severe circumstances beyond the control 
     of the sponsor, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.''.
       (e) Derivative Eligibility for Benefits.--Section 436 of 
     the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1646) is repealed.
       (f) Application.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall apply to assistance or benefits provided 
     under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) for 
     months beginning on or after April 1, 2002.

     SEC. 3. PREVENTION OF HUNGER AMONG FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.

       (a) Standard Deduction.--Section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act 
     of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Standard deduction.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall allow a standard deduction for each household 
     in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, 
     Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United 
     States equal to the applicable percentage established under 
     subparagraph (C) of the income standard of eligibility under 
     subsection (c)(1).
       ``(B) Limitations.--The standard deduction for each 
     household in the 48 contiguous States and the District of 
     Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the 
     United States under subparagraph (A) shall not be--
       ``(i) less than $134, $229, $189, $269, and $118, 
     respectively; or
       ``(ii) more than the applicable percentage specified in 
     subparagraph (C) of the income standard of eligibility 
     established under section (c)(1) for a household of 6 
     members.
       ``(C) Applicable percentage.--The applicable percentage 
     referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be--
       ``(i) for fiscal year 2002, 8 percent;
       ``(ii) for fiscal year 2003, 8.5 percent;
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 2004, 9 percent;

[[Page 4219]]

       ``(iv) for fiscal year 2005, 9.5 percent; and
       ``(v) for each subsequent fiscal year, 10 percent.''.
       (b) Application Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply on the later of--
       (1) July 1, 2002; or
       (2) at the option of a State agency of a State (as those 
     terms are defined in section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2012)), October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT OF COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

       (a) In general.--Section 5(e)(2) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and child support'' after ``income'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A) by--
       (A) striking ``Definition of'' and all that follows through 
     ``not include'' and inserting ``Limitation on deduction.--The 
     deduction in this paragraph shall not apply to'';
       (B) striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (C) striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (D) adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) child support received to the extent of any 
     reduction in public assistance to the household as a result 
     of receiving such support.''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``to compensate'' and 
     all that follows through the period and inserting ``and child 
     support received from an identified or putative parent of a 
     child in the household if that parent is not a household 
     member.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 5. MINIMUM FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT.

       Section 8(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2017(a)) is amended by striking ``shall be $10 per month.'' 
     and inserting ``shall be--
       ``(1) for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $15 per 
     month;
       ``(2) for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $20 per 
     month;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2006, $25 per month;
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2007 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
     the minimum allotment under paragraph (3), adjusted on each 
     October 1 to reflect the percentage change in the cost of the 
     thrifty food plan for the 12-month period ending in the 
     preceding June, rounded to the nearest lower dollar 
     increment.''.

     SEC. 6. TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS OPTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(s) Transitional Benefits Option.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may provide transitional food 
     stamp benefits to a household that is no longer eligible to 
     receive cash assistance under a State program funded under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.).
       ``(2) Transitional benefits period.--Under paragraph (1), a 
     household may continue to receive food stamp benefits for a 
     period of not more than 6 months after the date on which cash 
     assistance is terminated.
       ``(3) Amount.--During the transitional benefits period 
     under paragraph (2), a household shall receive an amount 
     equal to the allotment received in the month immediately 
     preceding the date on which cash assistance is terminated, 
     adjusted for--
       ``(A) the change in household income as a result of the 
     termination of cash assistance; and
       ``(B) any changes in circumstances that may result in an 
     increase in the food stamp allotment of the household and 
     that the household elects to report (as verified in 
     accordance with standards established by the Secretary).
       ``(4) Determination of future eligibility.--In the final 
     month of the transitional benefits period under paragraph 
     (2), the State agency may--
       ``(A) require a household to cooperate in a redetermination 
     of eligibility to receive uninterrupted benefits after the 
     transitional benefits period; and
       ``(B) renew eligibility for a new certification period for 
     the household without regard to whether the previous 
     certification period has expired.
       ``(5) Limitation.--A household sanctioned under section 6 
     shall not be eligible for transitional benefits under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012) 
     is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Certification Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--`Certification period' means the period 
     for which households shall be eligible to receive benefits 
     under this Act.
       ``(2) Duration.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certification period shall not exceed 
     12 months, except that--
       ``(i) a certification period may be up to 24 months if all 
     adult household members are elderly or disabled; and
       ``(ii) a certification period may be extended during the 
     transitional benefits period under section 11(s).
       ``(B) Extension.--The certification period may be extended 
     to the end of a transitional benefits period established by a 
     State under section 11(s).
       ``(3) Contact.--A State agency shall have at least 1 
     contact with each certified household--
       ``(A) at least once every 12 months; or
       ``(B) in a case in which the household is in a transitional 
     benefits period under section 11(s), within the 6-month 
     period beginning on the date on which cash assistance is 
     terminated.''.
       (2) Section 6(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015(c)) is amended by striking ``No household'' and 
     inserting ``Except in a case in which a household is 
     receiving transitional benefits during the transitional 
     benefits period under section 11(s), no household''.

     SEC. 7. FOOD STAMP INFORMATION.

       (a) Training Materials; Nutrition Information.--Section 11 
     of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020) (as amended by 
     section 6) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Resources for State Agency Employees.--The Secretary, 
     in partnership with State agencies, shall develop training 
     materials, guidebooks, and other resources for use by 
     employees of State agencies that focus on issues of access 
     and eligibility under the food stamp program.
       ``(u) Nutrition Information.--The Secretary shall maintain 
     a toll-free information number for individuals to call to 
     obtain information concerning the nutrition programs.''.
       (b) Inter-Program Coordination of Application and 
     Verification Process.--Section 17 of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2026) is amended by striking subsection (e) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Pilot Projects for Inter-Program Coordination of 
     Application and Verification Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide the Federal 
     shares of funds to States to carry out pilot projects under 
     paragraph (2) to improve the application and verification 
     process for low-income working households to participate in 
     the food stamp program.
       ``(2) Eligible projects.--
       ``(A) Inter-program application process.--
       ``(i) Application at one-stop delivery centers.--The 
     Secretary shall provide funding to not more than 5 States to 
     conduct pilot projects to improve inter-program coordination 
     by co-locating employees and automated systems necessary to 
     accept complete initial processing of applications for 
     assistance under this Act at centers in one-stop delivery 
     systems established under section 134(c) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2864(c)).
       ``(ii) Application for assistance under medicaid/schip.--
     The Secretary shall provide funding to not more than 5 States 
     to conduct pilot projects to improve inter-program 
     coordination by co-locating employees and automated systems 
     necessary to accept complete initial processing of 
     applications for assistance under this Act at locations where 
     applications are received for assistance under titles XIX and 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. and 
     1397aa et seq.).
       ``(B) Inter-program verification process.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall provide funding to 
     not more than 5 States to conduct pilot projects to reduce 
     administrative burdens on low-income working households by 
     coordinating, to the maximum extent practicable, verification 
     practices under this Act and verification practices under 
     titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 
     et seq. and 1397aa et seq.).
       ``(ii) Eligibility.--To be eligible to conduct a pilot 
     project under clause (i), a State must have an automation 
     system with the capacity to verify through electronic records 
     the most common sources of incomes under this Act and titles 
     XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act.
       ``(iii) Administration.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall adjust procedures under this 
     Act and titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act, to the 
     extent each of the Secretaries determines appropriate, to 
     facilitate pilot projects under clause (i).
       ``(3) Preferences.--In selecting pilot projects under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall provide a preference to 
     projects that--
       ``(A) operate in rural areas; or
       ``(B) benefit low-income households residing in remote 
     rural areas.
       ``(4) Waiver.--To reduce travel and paperwork burdens on 
     eligible households, the Secretary may waive requirements 
     under sections 6(c) and 11(e)(3) for pilot projects conducted 
     under this subsection.
       ``(5) Evaluation of pilot projects.--Any State conducting a 
     pilot project under this subsection shall provide to the 
     Secretary, in accordance with standards established by the 
     Secretary, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project.
       ``(6) Funding.--Of funds made available under section 18 
     for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Secretary shall 
     use--
       ``(A) $10,000,000 to pay 75 percent of the additional costs 
     incurred by State agencies to conduct pilot projects under 
     paragraph 2(A); and
       ``(B) $500,000 to pay 75 percent of the costs of evaluating 
     pilot projects conducted under paragraph 2(B).''.
       (c) Innovative Participation Strategies.--Section 17 of the 
     Food Stamp Act of

[[Page 4220]]

     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2026) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(l) Innovative Out-of-Office Application and 
     Participation Strategies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     demonstration projects to evaluate the feasibility and 
     desirability of allowing eligible households to participate 
     in the food stamp program through the use of the Internet and 
     telephones instead of through in-office visits and 
     interviews.
       ``(2) Preferences.--The Secretary shall provide a 
     preference under this subsection to projects that--
       ``(A)(i) are conducted in rural areas; or
       ``(ii) serve eligible households in remote locations; and
       ``(B) are collaborative efforts between State agencies and 
     nonprofit community groups.
       ``(m) Grants for Partnerships and Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide grants to 
     State agencies and nonprofit organizations to conduct 
     projects to improve access to the food stamp program through 
     partnerships and innovative technology.
       ``(2) Priority.--In providing grants under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to projects that focus on 
     households with low food stamp participation.
       ``(n) Grants for Community Partnerships and Innovative 
     Outreach Strategies.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     program to award grants to eligible organizations described 
     in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) to develop and test innovative strategies to ensure 
     that low-income needy eligible households that contain 1 or 
     more members that are former or current recipients of 
     benefits under a State program established under part A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
     continue to receive benefits under this Act if the households 
     meet the requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) to help ensure that households that have applied for 
     benefits under a State program established under part A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act, but that did not receive 
     the benefits because of State requirements or ineligibility 
     for the benefits, are aware of the availability of, and are 
     provided assistance in receiving, benefits under this Act if 
     the households meet the requirements of this Act;
       ``(C) to conduct outreach to households with earned income 
     that is at or above the income eligibility limits for 
     benefits under a State program established under part A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act if the households meet 
     the requirements of this Act; and
       ``(D) to conduct outreach to households with children if 
     the households meet the requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Eligible organizations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Grants under paragraph (1) may be 
     provided to--
       ``(i) food banks, food rescue organizations, faith-based 
     organizations, and other organizations that supply food to 
     low-income households;
       ``(ii) schools, school districts, health clinics, non-
     profit day care centers, Head Start agencies under the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), Healthy Start agencies 
     under section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     241), and State agencies and local agencies providing 
     assistance under the special supplemental nutrition program 
     for women, infants, and children established under section 17 
     of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786);
       ``(iii) local agencies that operate child nutrition 
     programs (as those terms are defined in section 25(b) of the 
     Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1769f(b)); and
       ``(iv) other organizations designated by the Secretary
       ``(B) Geographical distribution of recipients.--
       ``(i) In general.-- Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary 
     shall select, from all eligible applications, at least 1 
     recipient to receive a grant under this subsection from--

       ``(I) each region of the Department of Agriculture; and
       ``(II) in addition to recipients selected under subclause 
     (I), each rural or urban area determined to be appropriate by 
     the Secretary.

       ``(ii) Exception.--The Secretary shall not be required to 
     award grants based on the geographical guidelines under 
     clause (i) to the extent that the Secretary determines that 
     an insufficient number of eligible grant applications has 
     been received.
       ``(3) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop criteria for 
     awarding grants under paragraph (1) that are based on--
       ``(A) the demonstrated record of an organization in serving 
     low-income households;
       ``(B) the ability of an organization to reach hard-to-serve 
     households;
       ``(C) the level of innovation in the proposals submitted in 
     the application of an organization for a grant; and
       ``(D) the development of partnerships between the public 
     and private sector entities and the community.
       ``(4) Administration.--
       ``(A) Administrative costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     funds made available for the grant program under paragraph 
     (5) shall be used by the Secretary for administrative costs 
     incurred in carrying out this subsection.
       ``(B) Program evaluations.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct evaluations 
     of programs funded by grants under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of funds made 
     available for the grant program under paragraph (5) shall be 
     used for program evaluations under clause (i).
       ``(5) Funding.--Of funds made available under section 18 
     for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Secretary shall 
     use $10,000,000 to carry out the grant program under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL 
                   COMMODITIES UNDER EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 214 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 7515) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to any other funds that are 
     made available to carry out this section, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to purchase and make available 
     additional commodities under this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(2) Direct expenses.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     amount made available under paragraph (1) shall be used to 
     pay direct expenses (as defined in section 204(a)(2)) 
     incurred by emergency feeding organizations to distribute 
     additional commodities to needy persons.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 584. A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 
40 Centre Street in New York, New York, as the ``Thurgood Marshall 
United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here today in order 
to join my colleague Congressman Eliot Engel and other members of the 
New York Delegation in introducing a bill that would designate the U.S. 
Courthouse situated at 40 Centre Street in New York City the Thurgood 
Marshall United States Courthouse.
  The courthouse on 40 Centre Street is the site where Thurgood 
Marshall served from 1961 to 1965 during his tenure on the U.S. Second 
Circuit Court of Appeals. For over 30 years of his life, Thurgood 
Marshall worked in New York, first as chief counsel of the NAACP, and 
later as a Justice on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
  President Kennedy nominated Thurgood Marshall to serve on the federal 
bench in a recess appointment--at the time there was resistance to an 
African American being named to the federal appeals court. Robert 
Kennedy was Thurgood Marshall's sponsor, and sat beside him in a show 
of support throughout his confirmation hearing. The Senate eventually 
confirmed his nomination.
  Later, President Johnson went on to name Justice Marshall Solicitor 
General of the United States, and then to nominate him as the first 
African American to serve on the United States Supreme Court. There, he 
became one of the most influential and respected justices of this past 
century. In a tribute to Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Rehnquist 
said:

       Inscribed above the front entrance to the Supreme Court 
     building are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Surely, 
     no one individual did more to make these words a reality than 
     Thurgood Marshall.

  It is amazing to think that a little boy who grew up under the iron 
grip of Jim Crow, a talented student who was denied admission to the 
University of Maryland's Law School because of his race and went on to 
graduate at the top of his law class at Howard University, charted a 
course in the courts that led the way for the Civil Rights Movement to 
put an end to the segregation that had plagued our country for so long.
  Thurgood Marshall will always be our nation's preeminent civil rights 
lawyer. He won 29 of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court. 
During his time with the NAACP, he argued one of the hallmark court 
cases of our time, Brown v. Board of Education, which declared 
segregation illegal.
  For those of us who were alive then, we will forever have etched in 
our consciousness images of the Little Rock Nine, and the sheer courage 
of those children who would not be deterred from their efforts to 
integrate Central High School. As foot soldiers of the first true test 
of Brown v. Board of

[[Page 4221]]

Education, the Little Rock Nine will always be American heroes. And so 
will Thurgood Marshall, whose brilliance and persistence in the 
courtroom made possible the eventual success of the civil rights 
movement, as it took root in small towns and large cities all across 
America.
  Thurgood Marshall was a role model to all who knew him in the way 
that he carried himself and treated his coworkers and friends. He was 
known for his casualness, and his ability to put people at ease. And he 
enjoyed life--his son, Thurgood Marshall, Jr., has shared with me the 
love his father held for New York City and the joy he found there. I 
had the privilege of attending his memorial service, and saw that 85 of 
his former law clerks were there. This is a great testament to Thurgood 
Marshall, and I believe they, and all the good works they do, may be 
one of his greatest legacies.
  New Yorkers will be proud to have a courthouse named after a man who 
committed himself to attaining equal opportunity for every American. 
For many years of his life, Thurgood Marshall was denied access to the 
institutions, restaurants and hotels in New York City and elsewhere. 
But he always found an open door at the courthouse, and he never gave 
up on his belief that he could right the nation's wrongs through the 
courts. There could not be a more fitting tribute than to name a 
courthouse in New York City, a city at the forefront of so many 
national and global movements, after Thurgood Marshall, an American 
hero and visionary whose work embodies the spirit of our country.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 584

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THURGOOD MARSHALL UNITED STATES 
                   COURTHOUSE.

       The United States courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in 
     New York, New York, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the United States 
     courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from New York and 
our colleagues in the House, Congressman Engel, for their introduction 
of this bill. I compliment my friend from New York for her wonderful 
remarks about Thurgood Marshall, who has been an inspiration for a 
generation of us who grew up watching him change the law of this 
country, making a difference in the lives of millions and millions of 
people but also for generations to come, who will remember and reflect 
on his work as an inspiration in their time to redress the wrongs of 
their age.
  It is appropriate, proper, and fitting that this building in New York 
that houses the Federal judiciary be named for such an inspiring figure 
of our times.
  I commend the Senator from New York for offering this, for her words 
today, and my compliments to Thurgood Marshall's family. Thurgood 
Marshall, Jr. has been a great friend to many of us here and has been a 
wonderful public servant in his own right. He carries on the great 
tradition his father carried as a judge and Member of the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to be a cosponsor of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Clinton for her words 
about Thurgood Marshall. I certainly also would like to be a cosponsor 
of this. I recommend on the floor of the Senate, if it is appropriate, 
Juan Williams' wonderful biography of Thurgood Marshall that I read 
about 6 months ago, which was a very inspiring biography because it was 
about such an inspiring civil rights leader and great judge.
  I thank the Senator from New York for her remarks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 586. A bill to authorize negotiation for the accession of Chile to 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, to provide for fast track 
consideration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I 
authored last year to enable the President to admit Chile into NAFTA. 
Nearly 6 years ago, a bipartisan majority of this body ratified the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then the promises of new 
jobs, increased exports, lower tariffs and a clearer environment have 
all been realized. In other words, Mr. President, NAFTA has succeeded 
despite the predictions of some that America could not compete in 
today's global economy.
  As I said last year, with the success of NAFTA as a backdrop, it is 
now high time to move forward and expand the free trade zone to other 
countries in our hemisphere. To help accomplish that important goal, my 
legislation will authorize and enable the President to move forward 
with negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile.
  President Bush has stated time and again that he wants to increase 
ties with Latin America and more fully engage our neighbors to the 
South. Western Hemisphere trade ministers are planning to develop a 
draft proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas at their 
ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires in April. This draft will then be 
considered by Western Hemisphere leaders at the third Summit of the 
Americas in Quebec City at the end of that month. I hope that this 
summit bears fruit. Indeed, I have been working toward a free trade 
agreement of the Americas for many years. We should quickly take the 
first step toward economic integration with our Southern neighbors by 
including Chile, who has been in negotiations to join NAFTA since early 
January, in our North American trade agreement.
  Chile is surely worthy of membership in NAFTA. In fact, Chile has 
already signed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1996. And, in 
addition, Chile has also put in place a free trade agreement with 
Mexico. After a brief slowdown last year, today the Chilean economy is 
growing at a healthy annual rate of more than 6 percent. Chile is noted 
for its concern for preserving the environment, and has put in place 
environmental protections that are laudable. Chile's fiscal house is in 
order as evidenced by a balanced budget, strong currency, strong 
foreign reserves, and continued inflows of foreign capital, including 
significant direct investment.
  In addition, Chile has already embraced the ideals of free trade. 
Since 1998, the Chilean tariff on goods from countries with which Chile 
does not yet have a free trade agreement has fallen from 11 percent to 
8 percent. That tariff is scheduled to continue to fall by a point a 
year until it reaches 6 percent in 2003. While some goods are still 
assessed at a higher rate, the United States does a brisk export 
business to Chile, sending approximately $3.6 billion in American goods 
to that South American nation. That represents 24 percent of Chile's 
imports. That $3.6 billion in exports represents thousands of American 
jobs across the Nation.
  Our firm belief in the importance of democracy continues to drive our 
foreign policy. After seventeen years of dictatorship, Chile returned 
to the family of democratic nations following the 1988 plebiscite. 
Today, the President and the legislature are both popularly elected and 
the Chilean armed forces effectively carry out their responsibilities 
as mandated in Chile's Constitution. American investment and trade cay 
play a critical role in building on Chile's political and economic 
successes.
  It is unrealistic to think that the President will have the ability 
to negotiate a free trade agreement without fast track authority. Nor 
should we ask Chilean authorities to conduct negotiations under such 
circumstances. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today

[[Page 4222]]

will provide President Bush with a limited fast track authority which 
will apply only to this specific treaty. I believe that fast track is 
key to enabling the President to negotiate the most advantageous trade 
agreements, and should therefore be re-authorized. At this point, 
however, there are stumbling blocks we must surmount before generic 
fast track can be re-authorized. Those stumbling blocks should not be 
allowed to stand in the way of free trade with Chile.
  Naysayers claim that free trade prompts American business to move 
overseas and costs American workers their jobs. They will tell you that 
America, the Nation with the largest and strongest economy, the best 
workers, and the greatest track record of innovation cannot compete 
with other nations.
  The past 6\1/2\ years since we ratified NAFTA have proven them wrong. 
Today, tariffs are down and exports are up. The environment in North 
America is cleaner. Most importantly, NAFTA has created 710,000 new 
American jobs all across the Nation.
  The many successes of NAFTA are an indication of the potential 
broader free trade agreements hold for our economy. Furthermore, trade 
and economic relationships foster American influence and support our 
foreign policy. In other words, this bill represents new American jobs 
in every state in the nation, a stronger American economy and greater 
American influence in our own Hemisphere. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, 
        and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 587. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and title XVIII 
of the Social Security Act to sustain access to vital emergency medical 
services in rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Sustaining 
Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001. This bill would 
take important steps to strengthen the emergency medical service system 
in rural communities and across the Nation.
  Across America, emergency medical care reduces human suffering and 
saves lives. According to recent statistics, the average U.S. citizen 
will require the services of an ambulance at least twice during his or 
her life. As my colleagues surely know, delays in receiving care can 
mean the difference between illness and permanent injury, between life 
and death. In rural communities, which often lack access to local 
health care services, the need for reliable EMS is particularly 
critical.
  Over the next few decades, the need for quality emergency medical 
care in rural areas is projected to increase as the elderly population 
in these communities continues to rise. Unfortunately, while the need 
for effective EMS systems may increase, we have seen the number of 
individuals able to provide these services decline. Nationwide, the 
majority of emergency medical personnel are unpaid volunteers. As rural 
economies continue to suffer, and individuals have less and less time 
to devote to volunteering, it has become increasingly difficult for 
rural EMS squads to recruit and retain personnel. In my State of North 
Dakota, this phenomenon has resulted in a sharp reduction in EMS squad 
size. In 1980, on average there were 35 members per EMS squad; today, 
the average squad size has plummeted to 12 individuals per unit. I am 
concerned that continued reductions in EMS squad size could jeopardize 
rural residents' access to needed medical services.
  For this reason, the legislation I am introducing today includes 
measures to help communities recruit, retain, and train EMS providers. 
My bill would establish a Rural Emergency Medical Services Training and 
Equipment Assistance program. This program would authorize $50 million 
in grant funding for fiscal years 2002-2007, which could be used in 
rural EMS squads to meet various personnel needs. For example, this 
funding could help cover the costs of training volunteers in emergency 
response, injury prevention, and safety awareness; volunteers could 
also access this funding to help meet the costs of obtaining State 
emergency medical certification. In addition, EMS squads would be 
offered the flexibility to use grant funding to acquire new equipment, 
such as cardiac defibrillators. This is particularly important for 
rural squads that have difficulty affording state-of-the-art equipment 
that is needed for stabilizing patients during long travel times 
between the rural accident site and the nearest medical facility. This 
grant funding could also be used to provide community education 
training in CPR, first aid or other emergency medical needs.
  In addition, this legislation takes steps to help ensure emergency 
medical providers are fairly reimbursed for ambulance services provided 
to Medicare, Medicare+Choice, and Medicaid managed care beneficiaries. 
As you may know, the Balanced Budget Act required that Medicare+Choice 
and Medicaid managed care plans provide payment for emergency services 
that a ``prudent layperson'' would determine are medically needed. 
However, regulations implementing this requirement did not include 
ambulance services within the definition of ``emergency services.'' 
Because of this oversight, ambulance providers are sometimes left in 
the difficult position of providing services to individuals who, by any 
rational review, appear to need immediate medical attention. However, 
when it is later determined that the patient's symptoms were the result 
of heartburn, for example, rather than a serious heart condition, the 
ambulance provider is denied payment for services. This is simply 
unfair.
  While it is certainly important that EMS providers take care not to 
provide unnecessary services, it is unfair to deny ambulance providers 
payment when they provide immediate emergency services to individuals 
who appear tin serious need of medical care. In my State, EMS providers 
are operating on tight budgets and cannot afford to provide high levels 
of uncompensated care. To ensure EMS services remain available, 
particularly in underserved rural areas, we must ensure that EMS 
providers are appropriately reimbursed for the care they provide to our 
communities. For this reason, my legislation would revise the ``prudent 
layperson'' definition to include ambulance services. This change will 
ensure that ambulance providers who provide care in situations where a 
responsible observer would deem this care medically necessary receive 
reimbursement under traditional Medicare, Medicare+Choice, and Medicaid 
managed care.
  It is my hope that the Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical 
Services Act will help ensure EMS providers can continue providing 
quality medical care to our communities. I am happy to say that this 
legislation is supported by the National Association of State EMS 
Directors, the National Rural Health Association, and the American 
Ambulance Association. I am also pleased that Senators Thomas, Daschle, 
Johnson, and others are joining me in this effort. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 
2001'' with Senators Conrad, Daschle, Roberts and Johnson. As with all 
rural health legislation I have worked on, I am proud of the bipartisan 
effort behind this bill.
  ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 
2001'' will provide assistance to rural providers to maintain access to 
important emergency medical services, EMS. This legislation is 
necessary because rural EMS providers are primarily volunteers who have 
difficulty recruiting, retaining and educating EMS personnel. Rural EMS 
providers also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential, life-
saving equipment.
  The first section of this legislation is the authorization of an 
annual $50 million competitive grant program. Grantees can use these 
funds for recruiting volunteers, training emergency personnel, using 
new technologies to educate providers, acquiring EMS vehicles such as 
ambulances and acquiring emergency medical equipment. I think

[[Page 4223]]

it is important to note that all of the above eligible uses of funds 
were priority concerns of State EMS Directors in a recently conducted 
Rural EMS Survey with recruitment and retention ranking as number one.
  The second part of this legislation applies the prudent layperson 
standard for emergency services currently used in hospital emergency 
rooms to ambulance services. This provision will assist ambulance 
providers in collecting payments for transporting patients to the 
hospital after answering a 911 call regardless of the final diagnosis. 
This is a common sense approach and ensures that all aspects of 
emergency care are operating under the same definition of emergency.
  I believe this legislation is an important part of ensuring rural 
residents have access to emergency services. It is also flexible so 
communities can decide for themselves what is their most imminent EMS 
need. Our bill is supported by the National Association of State EMS 
Directors, the National Rural Health Association and the American 
Ambulance Association. I strongly urge all my colleagues interested in 
rural health to consider cosponsoring ``The Sustaining Access to Vital 
Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Carper):
  S. 590. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
refundable tax credit for health insurance costs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my 
colleagues in introducing the Relief, Equity, Access, and Coverage for 
Health, REACH, Act, a bipartisan bill that will provide low and middle 
income Americans with refundable tax credits for the purchase of health 
insurance coverage.
  New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 43 million 
Americans with no health coverage. And, for the third straight year, 
insurance premiums for employer-sponsored coverage have increased 
significantly, by as much as 10 to 13 percent. We know from past 
experience that premium increases cause people to lose their health 
insurance. By some estimates, as many as 3 million Americans will lose 
coverage for every 10 percent increase in premiums.
  With premiums increasing and the economy uncertain, the problem could 
worsen. The impact of these numbers is very real for American families. 
The uninsured often go without needed health care or face unaffordable 
medical bills. Access to health coverage for the uninsured must be one 
of our nation's top priorities.
  The REACH tax credit is targeted to those who are most in need of 
help, Americans who earn too much to qualify for public programs, but 
nevertheless struggle to pay for health insurance. Without additional 
resources, health insurance coverage is either beyond their reach or 
only purchased by giving up other basic necessities of life.
  The REACH Act makes a refundable tax credit available to more than 20 
million Americans who do not have access to employer-sponsored 
insurance and who are ineligible for public programs. The amount of the 
credit for this group is $1,000 for individuals with adjusted gross 
incomes of up to $35,000 to purchase self-only coverage, and $2,500 for 
taxpayers with an AGI of up to $55,000 to purchase family coverage.
  We also want to help hard working Americans who have access to 
employer-subsidized insurance, but have difficulty paying for their 
share of the premiums. Over 7 million Americans decline insurance 
offered by their employers. To relieve their financial burden, the 
REACH Act provides a refundable tax credit of $400 for the purchase of 
self-only coverage and $1,000 for the purchase of family coverage under 
the employer's group health plan.
  Initial estimates indicate this legislation will provide coverage to 
more than 10 million Americans who are presently uninsured. In 
addition, it will give needed financial relief to over 60 million low 
and moderate income working Americans who are using their own scarce 
dollars to buy health insurance coverage today.
  The REACH Act provides a bipartisan, market-based solution to a 
complex problem. It will bolster the private health insurance market 
and strengthen employer-sponsored coverage, the cornerstone of our 
nation's health care system. While this legislation will not solve the 
entire problem, it is clearly a substantial step in the right 
direction. I will continue to work with my colleagues to tackle this 
problem on other fronts, including strengthening the safety net, 
working to make Medicaid and SCHIP more effective programs, and 
fighting to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on enacting the REACH 
Act into law this year. 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. 590

       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 ``Relief, Equity, Access, and 
     Coverage for Health (REACH) Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable personal credits) is amended by redesignating 
     section 35 as section 36 and inserting after section 34 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 35. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
     amount paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year for 
     qualified health insurance for the taxpayer and the 
     taxpayer's spouse and dependents.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum dollar amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount allowed as a credit under 
     subsection (a) to the taxpayer for the taxable year shall not 
     exceed the sum of the monthly limitations for coverage months 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(B) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for each 
     coverage month during the taxable year is the amount equal to 
     \1/12\ of--
       ``(i) in the case of self-only coverage, $1,000, and
       ``(ii) in the case of family coverage, $2,500.
       ``(C) Limitation for employees with employer subsidized 
     coverage.--In the case of an individual who is eligible to 
     participate in any subsidized health plan (within the meaning 
     of section 162(l)(2)) maintained by any employer of the 
     taxpayer or of the spouse of the taxpayer for any coverage 
     month, subparagraph (B) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$400' for `$1,000' and `$1,000' for `$2,500' for such month.
       ``(2) Phaseout of credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount which would (but for this 
     paragraph) be taken into account under subsection (a) shall 
     be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount determined 
     under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Amount of reduction.--The amount determined under 
     this subparagraph is the amount which bears the same ratio to 
     the amount which would be so taken into account for the 
     taxable year as--
       ``(i) the excess of--

       ``(I) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the 
     preceding taxable year, over
       ``(II) $35,000 ($55,000 in the case of family coverage), 
     bears to

       ``(ii) $10,000.
       ``(C) Modified adjusted gross income.--The term `modified 
     adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income 
     determined--
       ``(i) without regard to this section and sections 911, 931, 
     and 933, and
       ``(ii) after application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219, 
     221, and 469.
       ``(3) Coordination with deduction for health insurance 
     costs of self-employed individuals.--In the case of a 
     taxpayer who is eligible to deduct any amount under section 
     162(l) for the taxable year, this section shall apply only if 
     the taxpayer elects not to claim any amount as a deduction 
     under such section for such year.
       ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2002, each of the dollar amounts referred to 
     in paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(C), and (2)(B) shall be increased 
     by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `2001' for `1992'.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall 
     be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.
       ``(c) Coverage Month Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section--

[[Page 4224]]

       ``(1) In general.--The term `coverage month' means, with 
     respect to an individual, any month if--
       ``(A) as of the first day of such month such individual is 
     covered by qualified health insurance, and
       ``(B) the premium for coverage under such insurance, or any 
     portion of the premium, for such month is paid by the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(2) Exclusion of months in which individual is eligible 
     for coverage under certain health programs.--Such term shall 
     not include any month during a taxable year with respect to 
     an individual if, as of the first day of such month, such 
     individual is eligible--
       ``(A) for any benefits under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act,
       ``(B) to participate in the program under title XIX or XXI 
     of such Act.
       ``(C) for benefits under chapter 17 of title 38, United 
     States Code,
       ``(D) for benefits under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code,
       ``(E) to participate in the program under chapter 89 of 
     title 5, United States Code, or any similar program for State 
     or local government employees, or
       ``(F) for benefits under any medical care program under the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act or any other provision of 
     law.
       ``(3) Exclusion of months in which individual is 
     imprisoned.--Such term shall not include any month with 
     respect to an individual if, as of the first day of such 
     month, such individual is imprisoned under Federal, State, or 
     local authority.
       ``(d) Qualified Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified health insurance' means health 
     insurance coverage (as defined in section 9832(b)(1)), 
     including coverage under a COBRA continuation provision (as 
     defined in section 9832(d)(1)).
       ``(e) Medical Savings Account Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a deduction would (but for paragraph 
     (2)) be allowed under section 220 to the taxpayer for a 
     payment for the taxable year to the medical savings account 
     of an individual, subsection (a) shall be applied by treating 
     such payment as a payment for qualified health insurance for 
     such individual.
       ``(2) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed under section 220 for that portion of the payments 
     otherwise allowable as a deduction under section 220 for the 
     taxable year which is equal to the amount of credit allowed 
     for such taxable year by reason of this subsection.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--The 
     amount which would (but for this paragraph) be taken into 
     account by the taxpayer under section 213 for the taxable 
     year shall be reduced by the credit (if any) allowed by this 
     section to the taxpayer for such year.
       ``(2) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under this section to any individual with respect to 
     whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another 
     taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in 
     which such individual's taxable year begins.
       ``(3) Coordination with advance payment.--Rules similar to 
     the rules of section 32(g) shall apply to any credit to which 
     this section applies.
       ``(g) Expenses Must Be Substantiated.--A payment for 
     insurance to which subsection (a) applies may be taken into 
     account under this section only if the taxpayer substantiates 
     such payment in such form as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section, including regulations under which--
       ``(1) an awareness campaign is established to educate the 
     public, employers, insurance issuers, and agents or others 
     who market health insurance about the requirements and 
     procedures under this section, including--
       ``(A) criteria for insurance products and group health 
     coverage which constitute qualified health insurance under 
     this section,
       ``(B) procedures by which employers who do not offer health 
     insurance coverage to their employees may assist such 
     employees in securing qualified health insurance, and
       ``(C) guidelines for marketing schemes and practices which 
     are appropriate and acceptable in connection with the credit 
     under this section, and
       ``(2) periodic reviews or audits of health insurance 
     policies and group health plans (and related promotional 
     marketing materials) which are marketed to eligible taxpayers 
     under this section are conducted for the purpose of 
     determining--
       ``(A) whether such policies and plans constitute qualified 
     health insurance under this section, and
       ``(B) whether offenses described in section 7276 occur.''.
       (b) Information Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code (relating to information concerning 
     transactions with other persons) is amended by inserting 
     after section 6050S the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6050T. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS FOR QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who, in connection with a 
     trade or business conducted by such person, receives payments 
     during any calendar year from any individual for coverage of 
     such individual or any other individual under creditable 
     health insurance, shall make the return described in 
     subsection (b) (at such time as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe) with respect to each individual from 
     whom such payments were received.
       ``(b) Form and Manner of Returns.--A return is described in 
     this subsection if such return--
       ``(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
       ``(2) contains--
       ``(A) the name, address, and TIN of the individual from 
     whom payments described in subsection (a) were received,
       ``(B) the name, address, and TIN of each individual who was 
     provided by such person with coverage under creditable health 
     insurance by reason of such payments and the period of such 
     coverage,
       ``(C) the aggregate amount of payments described in 
     subsection (a),
       ``(D) the qualified health insurance credit advance amount 
     (as defined in section 7527(e)) received by such person with 
     respect to the individual described in subparagraph (A), and
       ``(E) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably prescribe.
       ``(c) Creditable Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `creditable health insurance' means 
     qualified health insurance (as defined in section 35(d)) 
     other than, to the extent provided in regulations prescribed 
     by the Secretary, any insurance covering an individual if no 
     credit is allowable under section 35 with respect to such 
     coverage.
       ``(d) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With 
     Respect to Whom Information Is Required.--Every person 
     required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish 
     to each individual whose name is required under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A) to be set forth in such return a written statement 
     showing--
       ``(1) the name and address of the person required to make 
     such return and the phone number of the information contact 
     for such person,
       ``(2) the aggregate amount of payments described in 
     subsection (a) received by the person required to make such 
     return from the individual to whom the statement is required 
     to be furnished,
       ``(3) the information required under subsection (b)(2)(B) 
     with respect to such payments, and
       ``(4) the qualified health insurance credit advance amount 
     (as defined in section 7527(e)) received by such person with 
     respect to the individual described in paragraph (2).

     The written statement required under the preceding sentence 
     shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year 
     following the calendar year for which the return under 
     subsection (a) is required to be made.
       ``(e) Returns Which Would Be Required To Be Made by 2 or 
     More Persons.--Except to the extent provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of any amount 
     received by any person on behalf of another person, only the 
     person first receiving such amount shall be required to make 
     the return under subsection (a).''.
       (2) Assessable penalties.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of such Code 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating clauses 
     (xi) through (xvii) as clauses (xii) through (xviii), 
     respectively, and by inserting after clause (x) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(xi) section 6050T (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance),''.

       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of the next to last 
     subparagraph, by striking the period at the end of the last 
     subparagraph and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(BB) section 6050T(d) (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance).''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6050S 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6050T. Returns relating to payments for qualified health 
              insurance.''.
       (c) Criminal Penalty for Fraud.--Subchapter B of chapter 75 
     of such Code (relating to other offenses) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7276. PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES RELATING TO HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE TAX CREDIT.

       ``Any person who knowingly misuses Department of the 
     Treasury names, symbols, titles, or initials to convey the 
     false impression of association with, or approval or 
     endorsement by, the Department of the Treasury of any 
     insurance products or group health coverage in connection 
     with the credit for health insurance costs under section 35 
     shall on conviction thereof be fined not more

[[Page 4225]]

     than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Election to have subsection apply.--No deduction 
     shall be allowed under paragraph (1) for a taxable year 
     unless the taxpayer elects to have this subsection apply for 
     such year.''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 35 of such Code''.
       (3) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 35. Health insurance costs.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

       (4) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 75 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 7276. Penalties for offenses relating to health insurance tax 
              credit.''.

       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2001.
       (2) Penalties.--The amendments made by subsections (c) and 
     (d)(4) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF CREDIT TO ISSUERS OF QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7527. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT TO 
                   ISSUERS OF QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual, 
     the Secretary shall make payments to the health insurance 
     issuer of such individual's qualified health insurance equal 
     to such individual's qualified health insurance credit 
     advance amount with respect to such issuer.
       ``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `eligible individual' means any individual--
       ``(1) who purchases qualified health insurance (as defined 
     in section 35(c)), and
       ``(2) for whom a qualified health insurance credit 
     eligibility certificate is in effect.
       ``(c) Health Insurance Issuer.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `health insurance issuer' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 9832(b)(2) (determined without 
     regard to the last sentence thereof).
       ``(d) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Eligibility 
     Certificate.--For purposes of this section, a qualified 
     health insurance credit eligibility certificate is a 
     statement furnished by an individual to a qualified health 
     insurance issuer which--
       ``(1) certifies that the individual will be eligible to 
     receive the credit provided by section 35 for the taxable 
     year,
       ``(2) estimates the amount of such credit for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(3) provides such other information as the Secretary may 
     require for purposes of this section.
       ``(e) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Advance Amount.--
     For purposes of this section, the term `qualified health 
     insurance credit advance amount' means, with respect to any 
     qualified health insurance issuer of qualified health 
     insurance, an estimate of the amount of credit allowable 
     under section 35 to the individual for the taxable year which 
     is attributable to the insurance provided to the individual 
     by such issuer.
       ``(f) Required Documentation for Receipt of Payments of 
     Advance Amount.--No payment of a qualified health insurance 
     credit advance amount with respect to any eligible individual 
     may be made under subsection (a) unless the health insurance 
     issuer provides to the Secretary--
       ``(1) the qualified health insurance credit eligibility 
     certificate of such individual, and
       ``(2) the return relating to such individual under section 
     6050T.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     77 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 7527. Advance payment of health insurance credit for purchasers 
              of qualified health insurance.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 4. COMBINATION OF COST OF SCHIP COVERAGE FOR A TARGETED 
                   LOW-INCOME CHILD WITH REFUNDABLE HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE COSTS CREDIT TO PURCHASE FAMILY 
                   COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2105(c)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting such clauses 
     appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``Payment'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Payment''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Combination of cost of providing child health 
     assistance with refundable health insurance costs tax 
     credit.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a targeted low-income 
     child who is eligible for child health assistance and whose 
     parent is eligible for the refundable health insurance costs 
     tax credit provided under section 35 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, payment may be made to a State under subsection 
     (a)(1) for payment by the State to a health insurance issuer 
     that receives advance payment of such credit on behalf of the 
     parent under section 7527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, of an amount equal to the estimated cost of providing 
     the child with child health assistance for a calendar year, 
     but only if--

       ``(I) the health insurance issuer uses the State payment 
     made under this subparagraph and the advance credit payment 
     to provide family coverage for the parent and the targeted 
     low-income child; and
       ``(II) the State establishes to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the conditions set forth in clauses (i) and 
     (ii) of subparagraph (A) are met.

       ``(ii) Definition of health insurance issuer.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term `health insurance issuer' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 9832(b)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without regard to the last 
     sentence thereof).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on January 1, 2002.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords and 
my colleagues today in a bipartisan effort to address the growing 
number of individuals and families without health insurance coverage in 
this country.
  The problem has been made clear. Despite last year's decline in 
America's uninsured population, there are still more than 43 million 
americans--one-sixth of our Nation's population, who do not have health 
insurance. We know that the majority of the uninsured, 32 of the 44 
million, earn an annual income of under $50,000. We also know that the 
rising cost of health insurance is the single most important reason 
given for the lack of purchasing coverage. Many Americans simply cannot 
afford to buy health insurance.
  The solutions are becoming clearer as well. A one-size-fits-all 
approach to expand health coverage and access to health care does not 
meet the various needs of the uninsured population. However, because 
our workforce is growing and evolving out of the older traditional 
models, we must look to common features of the uninsured population. 
Although more than 80 percent of the uninsured individuals come from 
families with at least one employed member, the majority of uninsured 
Americans do not have access to employer-sponsored health coverage. An 
additional seven million Americans have access to employer-provided 
health insurance but are, in many cases, unable to afford it. 
Therefore, my colleagues and I today are introducing the Relief, 
Equity, Access, and Coverage for Health, REACH, Act to build upon the 
current system of employer-based coverage which continues to be the 
main source of coverage for most Americans.
  Our goal is to fill the coverage gaps that exist in the current 
system while also complementing and expanding the reach of the 
employment-based system. The central tenet of our proposal is a 
refundable tax credit for low-income Americans who are not offered a 
contribution for their insurance through their employer and do not 
receive coverage through Federal programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. 
For example, our proposal will help hard working Americans who cannot 
afford to buy coverage on their own, such as the part-time worker who 
is not offered employer-sponsored health insurance. We provide that 
worker with a $1,000 tax credit to purchase coverage. We help a young 
family with two children earning less than $50,000 a year by providing 
them with a $2,500 credit to purchase a health insurance policy for 
themselves and their children. In addition, the REACH Act also is 
designed to assist those Americans who do have access to employer-
subsidized health

[[Page 4226]]

insurance but, too often, decline it because they cannot afford the 
cost-sharing components. We provide these individuals and families with 
up to $400 annually for single coverage or $1,000 for themselves and 
their families. Overall it is estimated that these provisions would 
expand new health insurance to as many as 17 million previously 
uninsured Americans.
  I appreciate the work my colleagues have done on this bill, and I 
look forward to seeing the REACH Act passed into law this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Brownback, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Bayh, and 
        Mr. DeWine):
  S. 592. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create 
Individual Development Accounts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing with Senator Joe 
Lieberman ``the Savings Opportunity and Charitable Giving Act of 
2001.'' Other bipartisan cosponsors include Senators Hutchinson, 
Durbin, Brownback, Landrieu, Lugar, and Bayh. Within a month of the 
White House's formation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community 
Initiatives, we are moving the process forward in Congress by the 
bipartisan introduction of the key tax relief provisions of the 
President's Faith-Based Initiatives including Individual Development 
Accounts, IDAs, which President Bush endorsed in his campaign as part 
of the New Prosperity Initiative. Representatives J.C. Watts, Jr. and 
Tony Hall will be introducing a similar measure in the House of 
Representatives within the coming weeks. Beneficiary Choice expansion 
and other provisions will be pursued in a thoughtful manner but on a 
separate track from the tax provisions in the Senate.
  Success in today's new economy is defined less and less by how much 
you earn and more and more by how much you own, your asset base. This 
is great news for the millions of middle-class homeowners who are 
tapped into America's economic success, but it is bad news for those 
who are simply tapped out, those with no assets and little hope of 
accumulating the means for upward mobility and real financial security. 
This widening asset gap was underscored in a report issued earlier this 
year by the Federal Reserve. The Fed found that while the net worth of 
the typical family has risen substantially in recent years, it has 
actually dropped substantially for low-income families.
  For families with annual incomes of less than $10,000, the median net 
worth dipped from $4,800 in 1995 to $3,600 in 1998. For families with 
incomes between $10,000 and $25,000, the median net worth fell from 
$31,000 to $24,800 over the same period. The rate of home ownership 
among low-income families has dropped as well. For families making less 
than $10,000, it went from 36.1 percent to 34.5 percent from 1995 to 
1998; for those making between $10,000 and $25,000, it fell from 54.9 
percent to 51.7 percent.
  How do we reverse this troubling trend? IDAs are the unfinished 
business of the Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment 
initiatives which became law in December of 2000 and will increase job 
opportunities and renew hope in what have been hopeless places. But to 
sustain this hope, we must provide opportunities for individuals and 
families to build tangible assets and acquire stable wealth.
  Our legislation is aimed at fixing our nation's growing gap in asset 
ownership, which keeps millions of low-income workers from achieving 
the American dream. Most public attention focuses on our growing income 
gap. Though the booming American economy has delivered significant 
income gains to the nation's upper-income earners, lower-income workers 
have been left on the sidelines. This suggests to some that closing 
this divide between the have-mosts and the have-leasts is simply a 
matter of raising wages. But the reality is that the income gap is a 
symptom of a larger, more complicated problem.
  How do we do this? We believe that the marketplace can provide such 
opportunity. Non-profit groups around the country have launched 
innovative private programs that are achieving great success in 
transforming the ``unbanked,'' people who have never had a bank 
account, into unabashed capitalists. Through IDAs, banks and credit 
unions offer special savings accounts to low-income Americans and match 
their deposits dollar-for-dollar. In return, participants take an 
economic literacy course and commit to using their savings to buy a 
home, upgrade their education or to start a business.
  Thousands of people are actively saving today through IDA programs in 
about 250 neighborhoods nationwide. In one demonstration project 
undertaken by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, CFED, a 
leading IDA promoter, 1,300 families have already saved $329,000, which 
has leveraged an additional $742,000.
  While the growth of IDAs has been encouraging, access to IDA programs 
is still limited and scattered across the nation. The IDA provision of 
this legislation will expand IDA access nationwide by providing a 
significant tax credit to financial institutions and community groups 
that offer IDA accounts. This credit would reimburse banks for the 
first $500 of matching funds they contribute, thus significantly 
lowering the cost of offering IDAs. Other state and private funds can 
also be used to provide an additional match to savings. It also 
benefits our economy, the long-term stability of which is threatened by 
our pitiful national savings rate. In fact, according to some 
estimates, every $1 invested in an IDA returns $5 to the national 
economy.
  IDAs are matched savings accounts for working Americans restricted to 
three uses: 1. buying a first home; 2. receiving post-secondary 
education or training; or 3. starting or expanding a small business. 
Individual and matching deposits are not co-mingled; all matching 
dollars are kept in a separate, parallel account. When the account 
holder has accumulated enough savings and matching funds to purchase 
the asset, typically over two to four years, and has completed a 
financial education course, payments from the IDA will be made directly 
to the asset provider.
  Financial institutions, or their contractual affiliates, would be 
reimbursed for all matching funds provided plus a limited amount of the 
program and administrative costs incurred, whether directly or through 
collaborations with other entities. Specifically, the IDA Tax Credit 
would be the aggregate amount of all dollar-for-dollar matches 
provided, up to $500 per person per year, plus a one-time $100 per 
account credit for financial education, recruiting, marketing, 
administration, withdrawals, etc., plus an annual $30 per account 
credit for the administrative cost of maintaining the account. To be 
eligible for the match, adjusted gross income may not exceed $20,000, 
single, $25,000, head of household, or $40,000, married.
  President Bush has expressed support for IDAs in his campaign and we 
are working with the Administration to coordinate efforts to the 
fullest extent possible. Supporting groups include the Credit Union 
National Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the 
Corporation for Enterprise Development, the National Association of 
Homebuilders, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, the 
National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, the 
National Council for La Raza, and others.
  Individual Development Accounts, combined with other community 
development and wealth creation opportunities, are a first step towards 
restoring faith in the longstanding American promise of equal 
opportunity. That faith has been shaken by stark divisions of income 
and wealth in our society. With the leadership of President Bush and 
Speaker Hastert, I am hopeful, along with our other cosponsors, that 
Congress will take this first step toward restoring the long-cherished 
American ideals of rewarding hard work, encouraging responsibility, and 
expanding savings opportunity this year.

[[Page 4227]]

  The Non-Itemizer Charitable Deduction provision will initially allow 
non-itemizers to deduct 50 percent of their charitable giving, after 
they exceed a cumulative total of $500 in annual donations, $1,000 for 
joint filers. The deduction will be phased into a 100 percent deduction 
over the course of 5 years in 10 percent increments. Under current law 
non-itemizers receive no additional tax benefit for their charitable 
contributions.
  More than 84 million Americans cannot deduct any of their charitable 
contributions because they do not itemize their tax returns. In 
contrast, there are 34 million Americans who itemize and receive this 
benefit. For example, in Pennsylvania, there are nearly 4 million 
taxpayers who do not itemize deductions while slightly more than 1.5 
million taxpayers do itemize.
  While Americans are already giving generously to charities making a 
significant positive impact in our communities, this provision provides 
an incentive for additional giving and allows non-itemizers who 
typically have middle to lower middle incomes to also benefit from 
additional tax relief. In fact, non-itemizers earning less than $30,000 
give the highest percentage of their household income to charity. It is 
estimated that restoring this tax relief provision to merely 50 percent 
which existed in the 1980's would encourage more than $3 billion of 
additional charitable giving a year. The phased in increase to 100 
percent will result in even more additional giving. The floor is 
included because the standard personal deduction encompasses initial 
contributions.
  One important dimension of promoting charitable efforts helping to 
revitalize our communities, empower individuals and families, and 
enhance educational opportunities is encouraging charitable giving. 
This legislation is a great opportunity to lower the tax burden on the 
many Americans who have not received any tax relief for their 
charitable contributions since 1986.
  The IRA Charitable Rollover allows individuals to roll assets from an 
IRA into a charity or a deferred charitable gift plan without incurring 
any income tax consequences. The donation would be made to charity 
directly without ever withdrawing it as income and paying taxes on it.
  The rollover can be made as an outright gift, for a charitable 
remainder annuity trust, charitable remainder unitrust or pooled income 
fund, or for the issuance of a charitable annuity. The donor would not 
receive a charitable deduction. This incentive should assist charitable 
giving in education, social service, and religious charitable efforts.
  Food banks are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the demand 
for food assistance. In the past, food banks have benefitted from the 
inefficiencies of manufacturing, including the over-production of 
merchandise and the manufacturing of cosmetically-flawed products. 
However, technology has made businesses and manufacturers significantly 
more efficient. Although beneficial to the company's bottom-line, 
donations have lessened as a result. The fact is that the demand on our 
nation's church pantries, soup kitchens and shelter continues to rise, 
despite our economy.
  According to an August 2000 report on Hunger Security by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans, around 10 percent of 
our citizens, are living on the edge of hunger. Although this number 
has declined by 12 percent since 1995, everyone agrees that this figure 
remains too high.
  Unfortunately, many food banks cannot meet this increased demand for 
food. A December '99 study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 
requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 18 
percent in American cities over the previous year and 21 percent of 
emergency food requests could not be met. Statistics by the United 
States Department of Agriculture show that up to 96 billion pounds of 
food goes to waste each year in the United States. If a small 
percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we 
could make important strides in our fight against hunger. In many ways, 
current law is a hindrance to food donations.
  The tax code provides corporations with a special deduction for 
donations to food banks, but it excludes farmers, ranchers and 
restaurant owners from donating food under the same tax incentive. For 
many of these businesses, it is actually more cost effective to throw 
away food than donate it to charity. The hunger relief community 
believes that these changes will markedly increase food donations-
whether it is a farmer donating his crop, a restaurant owner 
contributing excess meals, or a food manufacturer producing 
specifically for charity.
  This bipartisan legislation was introduced separately by Senators 
Lugar and Leahy with 13 additional cosponsors including myself. It has 
been endorsed by a diverse set of organizations, including America's 
Second Harvest Food Banks, the Salvation Army, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Farmers Union, the National Restaurant 
Association, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
  Under current law, when a corporation donates food to a food bank, it 
is eligible to receive a ``special rule'' tax deduction. Unfortunately, 
most companies have found that the ``special rule" deduction does not 
allow them to recoup their actual production costs. Moreover, current 
law limits the ``special rule'' deduction only to corporations, thus 
prohibiting farmers, ranchers, small businesses and restaurant owners 
from receiving the same tax benefits afforded to corporations.
  This provision would encourage additional food donations through 
three changes to our tax laws: This bill will extend the ``special 
rule'' tax deduction for food donations now afforded only to 
corporations to all business taxpayers, including farmers and 
restaurant owners. This legislation will increase the tax deduction for 
donated food from basis plus  deg. markup to the fair market value of 
the product, not to exceed twice the product's basis. This bill will 
codify the Tax Court ruling in Lucky Stores, Inc. v. IRS, in which the 
Court found that taxpayers should base the determination of fair market 
value of donated product on recent sales.
  I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in this important 
effort to increase savings opportunities for lower income working 
Americans, to encourage the charitable giving of all Americans, to 
provide additional resources for the charitable organizations which 
serve their communities, and to encourage additional donations of food 
to alleviate hunger. I would also encourage my other colleagues to 
consider supporting this important initiative.

                          ____________________