[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23171-23175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 3. A bill to repeal the sunset of the provisions of the Economic 
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Investors are the backbone of the U.S. 
economic system. They provide the capital that entrepreneurs use to 
start and grow businesses. Investors invest in everything from 
corporations like General Electric to the local Mom and Pop convenience 
store. These are the businesses that employ our American workers and 
compete against other businesses throughout the United States and the 
world. It is investor capital that fuels the most dynamic workings of 
our economy.
  Too often, our Federal Government has taken the American investor for 
granted. Even worse, our Federal Government has singled him out for 
adverse treatment by placing significant impediments in his path.
  Congress needs to refocus our government's attention on helping our 
investors as well as making our U.S. businesses more attractive 
entities in which to invest.
  Today, I am introducing legislation, the ``Contract with Investors,'' 
which incorporates a number of proposals to foster a better investment 
environment.
  In order to satisfy an arcane Senate budget rule, the 2001 tax-relief 
law's provisions will expire in 2011. Making this bipartisan tax relief 
permanent will eliminate a large source of investor uncertainty that 
currently exists in the marketplace. Businesses are having a hard time 
planning with the Tax Code potentially reverting back to old tax laws. 
Businesses, and the investors who own them, need certainty and a stable 
environment in which to prosper. Making last year's tax provisions 
permanent will go a long way towards providing that certainty.
  The second thing my bill does is accelerate last year's marginal 
income tax rate reductions. Instead of reducing the tax brackets in 
2004 and 2006, as currently scheduled, my bill will move the 2004 rate 
reductions up to 2003 and the 2006 rate reductions up to 2004. Marginal 
tax-rate reductions benefit all income tax-paying Americans. Many 
investors invest in businesses that are sole proprietorships, i.e. non-
incorporated business entities. Owners of these businesses pay the 
highest individual marginal income tax rate; under my bill the highest 
rate they would pay in 2004 and beyond would be 35 percent, the same 
rate as corporations.
  The third provision would accelerate the repeal of the estate, or 
more accurately ``death'', tax. A December 1998 report by the Joint 
Economic Committee concluded that the existence of the death tax during 
the last century has reduced the stock of investors' capital in the 
economy by nearly half a trillion dollars. The Joint Committee 
estimates that, by repealing the death tax and putting those resources 
to better use, as many as 240,000 jobs could be created over seven 
years, and Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in 
disposable personal income.
  Last year, Dr. Wilbur Steger, President of Consad Research 
Corporation and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University testified 
before the Senate Finance Committee that an immediate death-tax repeal 
would provide a $40 billion automatic stimulus to the economy. This is 
based on estimates of the amount of net unrealized capital gains that 
would be unlocked by such a repeal. Many Americans choose to hold onto 
their assets until death in order to obtain for their heirs a ``step-
up'' in basis. Eliminating the death tax and a limited step-up in basis 
will provide an incentive for Americans to sell assets before death, 
hence the term ``unlocking.''
  Under current law, the death tax will go down to zero in 2010 but 
reappear thereafter, at potent 2001 levels, thus adding significant 
complexity to future death-tax planning, increasing costs that are a 
drag on productivity, and retreating from a principled rejection of a 
frankly immoral tax. This is unsatisfactory. Until the death tax is 
repealed, family businesses, farms and ranches must still pay for 
expensive life-insurance policies, death-tax planners, and tax 
attorneys. These expenses total more than $12 billion a year, according 
to Consad Research Corporation. A more efficient utilization of these 
resources would result in an immediate stimulus for the economy. More 
workers will be hired, more capital assets purchased and more 
productive goods made if we accelerate the elimination of the death tax 
and make it permanent. In short, Congress should hurry up and bury the 
death tax for all time to enable family businesses, farms, and ranches 
to begin investing those billions of wasted resources in the economy, 
creating jobs and expanding services, providing a powerful stimulus for 
their long-term survival. My bill would permanently repeal the death 
tax in 2005, thus allowing all Americans 2 years to plan for a future 
in which the federal government no longer taxes the death of its 
citizens.
  The fourth provision in my Contract with Investors addresses the 
taxation of capital gains. My bill would reduce it to 10 percent. The 
capital-gains tax is a form of double-taxation that penalizes risk-
taking and entrepreneurship. As many economists, including Federal 
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, note, the capital-gains tax should not 
exist. Short of eliminating this tax, Congress must enact a large, and 
permanent, reduction in the capital-gains tax rate in order to 
stimulate new investment and more productive use of resources for both 
the short-term and the long-term health of our economy.
  According to a recent study by the American Council for Capital 
Formation, American taxpayers face capital-gain tax rates that are 35 
percent higher than those paid by the average investor in other 
countries. In addition, the United States is one of a small number of 
countries that requires a holding period for an investment to qualify 
for a lower capital-gain treatment.
  In the last decade, individual capital-gains rate reductions and 
shortening of the holding period has boosted U.S. economic growth. 
Reducing the cost of capital will promote the promote the type of 
productive business investment that fosters growth in output and high-
paying jobs. Lowering rates will aid entrepreneurs in their effort to 
promote technological advances in products and services that people 
want and need.
  And let's not forget about our national savings. Reducing capital-
gains taxes means fewer taxes on Americans who choose to save for their 
future. What our economy needs is to remove impediments for savings and 
capital formation. When Americans choose to save for their retirement 
security and other financial goals, they are investing in the United 
States. We need to make that choice more attractive so

[[Page 23172]]

that Americans choose to invest more in the United States. Reducing the 
capital-gains taxes will help achieve this goal.
  My bill will also modernize the capital-loss provisions by increasing 
the amount of capital loss an individual may deduct against ordinary 
income to $10,000 from the current-law $3,000, and indexing it for 
future inflation. This $3,000 limit was arbitrarily set over 25 years 
ago and would have grown to $10,000 had it been indexed when it was 
enacted. Due to this lack of indexation, many investors are forced to 
hold on to unproductive investments. Updating this $3,000 limit will 
permit investors to sell these unproductive assets and invest the 
proceeds in more productive assets.
  Next, my bill will provide additional incentives for Americans to 
increase the amounts and periods of time in which they invest for their 
retirement security. Increasing the annual, maximum IRA contribution 
from $3,000 to $5,000 and the annual, maximum 401(k) plan contribution 
from $11,000 to $15,000 would enable American workers to save more for 
their future by investing in businesses. Increasing from 70.5 to 75 the 
age at which those tax-deferred retirement-savings accounts must begin 
making minimum required annual withdrawals will allow American seniors 
who are approaching this arbitrary age to choose whether to maintain 
their investments. They will not longer be forced to divest.
  The next provision in my bill would eliminate the double taxation of 
corporate profits. Currently, businesses pay income taxes on their 
profits. Their investors are forced to pay a second income tax on the 
amounts that corporations distribute to them in the form of dividends. 
The national Center for Policy Analysis has calculated that the 
combined tax rate on corporate profits is approximately 60 percent.
  My bill would remedy this problem by exempting from income tax the 
dividends received by individuals from publicly traded C corporations. 
Eliminating this taxation will produce higher returns on dividend-
yielding equity investments. Companies will have an incentive to make 
money and give it to the investor/shareholders in order to increase the 
value of the stock. Investors and businesses will benefit from this 
proposal.
  Finally, I have included five provisions under Sense of the Senate 
language. I believe that the Senate must act on these issues and I 
stand ready and willing to assist my fellow Senators in solving these 
problems.
  First, Congress should pass legislation to safeguard American 
workers' pension and retirement accounts. This year, the Finance 
Committee unanimously passed out of committee such a bill. The Senate 
and the House of Representatives should act quickly to pass similar 
legislation as soon as possible.
  Second, Congress should modernize this country's international tax 
provisions in order to permit U.S. companies to better compete 
internationally. Our Tax Code's provisions, particularly the 
international tax, are placing our U.S. companies and the investors who 
own them at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Congress must 
modernize these provisions and move towards ending the current practice 
of taxing profits earned outside our country's boundaries.
  Third, Congress must take the trouble to purge redundant, outdated, 
and unscientific regulatory burdens on investors and U.S. companies. 
Congress is quick to pass onerous new laws but slow to repeal them. 
This is an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators. Before 
placing new burdens on investors and businesses, Congress should be 
required to perform a cost-benefit analysis as well as instituting 
performance criteria to monitor and evaluate these new burdens on U.S. 
businesses and investors.
  Fourth, Congress should enact meaningful tort reform as soon as 
possible.
  Finally, Congress should enact meaningful tax reform that simplifies 
the Federal Tax Code and reduces the cost-recovery periods that 
businesses are forced to use to recover the costs of capital.
  Now is the time for bold action. A ``Contract with Investors'' is 
long overdue. I have laid out my principles. I look forward to future 
hearings and discussions with my colleagues. It's time to get working.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 5. A bill to strengthen and permanently preserve social security 
through the power of investment and compound interest without benefit 
reductions or tax increases, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior Senator 
from Texas in introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. He has 
worked a decade on this proposal, and I want to ensure that, as he 
leaves this distinguished body in a few short weeks, his time and 
effort will not have been wasted, for the stakes are far too high.
  Everyone knows that America's demographics are rapidly changing. In 
just nine short years, in 2011, the first of my generation of baby 
boomers will retire. In the 20 years thereafter, the number of 
Americans aged 65 and older will grow four times as fast as the number 
of working Americans. Under the current system, where no real 
investments are ever made and current benefits are paid entirely by 
taxing current workers, how do we expect to pay for this shift in 
demographics? In 2015, Social Security will be distributing more in 
benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and by 2038, the system 
will be completely bankrupt. Congress will be forced to either raise 
taxes on the next generation of workers by nearly 40 percent or cut the 
benefits of retirees by nearly 30 percent. If we continue to defer the 
difficult decisions on how we fix the system, that will be the position 
we will find ourselves in. If we begin now, however, we can stabilize 
and enhance the system before it is scheduled to go broke. But we must 
start now.
  In his message to Congress on Social Security in 1935, Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt called for a Social Security system of ``voluntary 
contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the 
annual amounts received in old age.'' This bill embraces that vision, 
and will strengthen and permanently preserve Social Security by 
actually making investments. All workers will have the option of 
investing a portion of their wages into accounts that earn a higher 
rate of return. Upon retirement, these investing workers would use the 
money in their accounts to purchase an annuity to pay benefits promised 
under the current system plus a bonus for participating in the new 
system. They could keep any excess. All workers, both those who invest 
and those who choose to remain in the current system, would be 
guaranteed every dollar of their currently promised benefit. No worker 
would ever experience a cut in benefits or a hike in taxes at any time. 
And when fully implemented, these changes to Social Security will yield 
benefits over two times those currently provided to an average worker. 
And the system's coming insolvency in 2038 would be reversed.
  It is time for our Nation to confront Social Security's impending 
financial crisis. For too long, we have ignored our nation's changing 
demographics which will result in a crushing burden being placed on our 
Social Security and Medicare systems if we don't deal with this 
challenge now. It will demand either higher taxes or reduced benefits 
later if we continue to defer our responsibilities. For too long, we 
have feared open and informative debate about reforming the Social 
Security system, believing that the American people are unwilling to 
consider the realities that we face. Politicians have been afraid of 
the political risks in honestly dealing with Social Security. The 
Congress and the President must face up to their responsibilities in 
dealing with this challenge. I will reintroduce this legislation to 
reform the Social Security system at the beginning of the next Congress 
and look forward to working with my colleagues and President Bush in 
this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3173. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish a 
national health program administered by

[[Page 23173]]

the Office of Personnel Management to offer Federal employee health 
benefits plans to individuals who are not Federal employees, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make 
available to all Americans the same range of private health insurance 
plans available to Members of Congress and other Federal employees 
through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP.
  Too many Americans do not have real insurance options. Many 
individuals lack insurance because no insurer is willing to cover them 
at a reasonable price. Others work for employers who do not provide 
health insurance or offer only one insurance provider. This legislation 
addresses these issues by giving individuals and businesses access to 
the group purchasing power of FEHBP and the wide range of health plans 
in that program.
  The OPTION Act, Offering People True Insurance Options Nationwide, 
would expand insurance options by allowing individuals to enroll in 
private health insurance plans nearly identical to the plans available 
to federal employees. Though the OPTION program would be separate from 
the Federal employees program, it would be modeled after FEHBP and 
would draw from FEHBP's strengths: plan choice, group purchasing 
savings, comprehensive benefits, and open enrollment periods.
  Under this legislation, all FEHBP health plans would be required to 
offer an OPTION health plan to non-Federal employees with the same 
range of benefits they offer Federal employees through FEHBP.
  OPTION enrollees would be placed in a separate risk pool to prevent 
any adverse effect on current FEHBP employees, annuitants, and their 
families. The OPTION Act would not result in any changes to the 
premiums or benefits of today's FEHBP health plans.
  OPTION health plans would not be allowed to impose any preexisting 
condition exclusions on new OPTION enrollees who have at least one year 
of health insurance coverage immediately prior to enrollment in an 
OPTION plan. To prevent people from waiting until they are sick to 
enroll, health plans would be allowed to exclude coverage for 
preexisting conditions for up to one year for people without coverage 
immediately prior to enrollment.
  One of the few differences from FEHBP is that OPTION plans would be 
allowed to vary premiums by age so that younger enrollees would be more 
likely to enroll. OPTION plans also would be required to offer rebates 
or lower premiums to encourage and reward longevity of health coverage. 
These provisions would act as an incentive for people to sign up when 
they are young and to maintain continuous coverage.
  Along with making FEHBP available in the individual market, the 
OPTION program will allow businesses to tap into the type of group 
buying power in the federal employees program if they voluntarily 
choose to participate. To be eligible, a business would have to be 
willing to pay at least a minimum percentage of premiums, varying from 
40 percent to 60 percent depending on the size of the business. 
Employers would also be offered an incentive to begin enrolling their 
employees by allowing them to pay as little as 20 percent of the 
premium for the first year. This innovative employer option would 
encourage employer health coverage rather than shifting coverage away 
from the private sector. I want to emphasize that employer 
participation would be entirely voluntary.
  Under the OPTION Act, premiums would not be government-subsidized. 
Instead, enrollees and those employers who choose to participate would 
be responsible for the cost of the premiums.
  The OPTION program would be administered by the Office of Personnel 
Management, OPM, which administers the FEHBP program, and would 
generally follow the rules for FEHBP. OPM has developed considerable 
expertise in negotiating and working with health plans and has shown 
that it can run a health program well at a minimal cost. We can build 
on OPM's expertise to extend the same health insurance options to all 
Americans.
  Finally, once it is up and running, this program would pay for 
itself. Administrative costs would be covered from a portion of the 
OPTION premiums. Those who benefit from the program would pay for its 
overhead costs.
  This legislation could open the door for many Americans to obtain 
good health insurance coverage. Health insurance premiums in today's 
market can be especially high, both for individuals and for small 
businesses buying insurance on their own. This legislation will reduce 
the cost of insurance, and as a result will help to reduce the number 
of uninsured Americans. It will also expand insurance options. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this very important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3173

       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 ``Offering People True 
     Insurance Options Nationwide Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. OPTION HEALTH INSURANCE.

       Subpart G of part III of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

       ``CHAPTER 90A--HEALTH INSURANCE FOR NON-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

``Sec.
``9051. Definitions.
``9052. Health insurance for non-Federal employees.
``9053. Contract requirement.
``9054. Eligibility.
``9055. Alternative conditions to Federal employee plans.
``9056. Coordination with social security benefits.
``9057. Non-Federal employer participation.

     ``Sec. 9051. Definitions

       ``In this chapter--
       ``(1) the terms defined under section 8901 shall have the 
     meanings given such terms under that section; and
       ``(2) the term `Office' means the Office of Personnel 
     Management.

     ``Sec. 9052. Health insurance for non-Federal employees

       ``(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall administer a 
     health insurance program for non-Federal employees in 
     accordance with this chapter.
       ``(b) Except as provided under this chapter, the Office 
     shall prescribe regulations to apply the provisions of 
     chapter 89 to the greatest extent practicable to eligible 
     individuals covered under this chapter.
       ``(c) In no event shall the enactment of this chapter 
     result in--
       ``(1) any increase in the level of individual or Government 
     contributions required under chapter 89, including copayments 
     or deductibles;
       ``(2) any decrease in the types of benefits offered under 
     chapter 89; or
       ``(3) any other change that would adversely affect the 
     coverage afforded under chapter 89 to employees and 
     annuitants and members of family under that chapter.
       ``(d) The Office shall develop methods to facilitate 
     enrollment under this chapter, including the use of the 
     Internet.
       ``(e) The Office may enter into contracts for the 
     performance of appropriate administrative functions under 
     this chapter.

     ``Sec. 9053. Contract requirement

       ``(a) Each contract entered into under section 8902 shall 
     require a carrier to offer to eligible individuals under this 
     chapter, throughout each term for which the contract remains 
     effective, the same benefits (subject to the same maximums, 
     limitations, exclusions, and other similar terms or 
     conditions) as would be offered under such contract or 
     applicable health benefits plan to employees, annuitants, and 
     members of family.
       ``(b)(1) The Office may waive the requirements of this 
     section, if the Office determines, based on a petition 
     submitted by a carrier that--
       ``(A) the carrier is unable to offer the applicable health 
     benefits plan because of a limitation in the capacity of the 
     plan to deliver services or assure financial solvency;
       ``(B) the applicable health benefits plan is not sponsored 
     by a carrier licensed under applicable State law; or
       ``(C) bona fide enrollment restrictions make the 
     application of this chapter inappropriate, including 
     restrictions common to plans which are limited to individuals 
     having a past or current employment relationship with a 
     particular agency or other authority of the Government.
       ``(2) The Office may require a petition under this 
     subsection to include--
       ``(A) a description of the efforts the carrier proposes to 
     take in order to offer the applicable health benefits plan 
     under this chapter; and

[[Page 23174]]

       ``(B) the proposed date for offering such a health benefits 
     plan.
       ``(3) A waiver under this subsection may be for any period 
     determined by the Office. The Office may grant subsequent 
     waivers under this section.

     ``Sec. 9054. Eligibility

       ``An individual shall be eligible to enroll in a plan under 
     this chapter, unless the individual is enrolled or eligible 
     to enroll in a plan under chapter 89.

     ``Sec. 9055. Alternative conditions to Federal employee plans

       ``(a) For purposes of enrollment in a health benefits plan 
     under this chapter, an individual who had coverage under a 
     health insurance plan and is not a qualified beneficiary as 
     defined under section 4980B(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 shall be treated in a similar manner as an 
     individual who begins employment as an employee under chapter 
     89.
       ``(b) In the administration of this chapter, covered 
     individuals under this chapter shall be in a risk pool 
     separate from covered individuals under chapter 89.
       ``(c)(1) Each contract under this chapter may include a 
     preexisting condition exclusion as defined under section 
     9801(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2)(A) The preexisting condition exclusion under this 
     subsection shall provide for coverage of a preexisting 
     condition to begin not more than 1 year after the date of 
     coverage of an individual under a health benefits plan, 
     reduced by 1 month for each month that individual was covered 
     under a health insurance plan immediately preceding the date 
     the individual submitted an application for coverage under 
     this chapter.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a lapse in coverage 
     of not more than 63 days immediately preceding the date of 
     the submission of an application for coverage shall not be 
     considered a lapse in continuous coverage.
       ``(d)(1) Rates charged and premiums paid for a health 
     benefits plan under this chapter--
       ``(A) may be adjusted and differ from such rates charged 
     and premiums paid for the same health benefits plan offered 
     under chapter 89;
       ``(B) shall be negotiated in the same manner as negotiated 
     under chapter 89; and
       ``(C) shall be adjusted to cover the administrative costs 
     of this chapter.
       ``(2) In determining rates and premiums under this 
     chapter--
       ``(A) the age of covered individuals may be considered; and
       ``(B) rebates or lower rates and premiums shall be set to 
     encourage longevity of coverage.
       ``(e) No Government contribution shall be made for any 
     covered individual under this chapter.
       ``(f) If an individual who is enrolled in a health benefits 
     plan under this chapter terminates the enrollment, the 
     individual shall not be eligible for reenrollment until the 
     first open enrollment period following 6 months after the 
     date of such termination.

     ``Sec. 9056. Coordination with social security benefits

       ``Benefits under this chapter shall, with respect to an 
     individual who is entitled to benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act, be offered (for use in 
     coordination with those social security benefits) to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as if coverage were under 
     chapter 89.

     ``Sec. 9057. Non-Federal employer participation

       ``(a) In this section the term--
       ``(1) `employee', notwithstanding section 9051, means an 
     employee of a non-Federal employer;
       ``(2) `non-Federal employer' means an employer that is not 
     the Federal Government; and
       ``(3) `total premium amount' means the total premiums for 
     individual coverage for the health benefits plan under which 
     the employee is enrolled, regardless of whether the employee 
     is enrolled as an individual or for self and family.
       ``(b)(1) The Office shall prescribe regulations under which 
     non-Federal employers may participate under this chapter, 
     including--
       ``(A) the offering of health benefits plans under this 
     chapter to employees through participating non-Federal 
     employers; and
       ``(B) a requirement for participating non-Federal employer 
     contributions to the payment of premiums for employees who 
     enroll in a health benefits plan under this chapter.
       ``(2) A participating non-Federal employer shall pay an 
     employer contribution for the premiums of an employee or 
     other applicable covered individual as follows:
       ``(A) A non-Federal employer that employs not more than 2 
     employees shall not be required to pay an employer 
     contribution.
       ``(B) A non-Federal employer that employs more than 2 and 
     not more than 25 employees shall pay not less than 40 percent 
     of the total premium amount.
       ``(C) A non-Federal employer that employs more than 25 and 
     not more than 50 employees shall pay not less than 50 percent 
     of the total premium amount.
       ``(D) A non-Federal employer that employs more than 50 
     employees shall pay not less than 60 percent of the total 
     premium amount.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) (B), (C), or (D), a 
     non-Federal employer that employs more than 2 employees shall 
     pay not less than 20 percent of the total premium amount with 
     respect to the first year in which that employer participates 
     under this chapter.
       ``(c)(1) A participating non-Federal employer shall ensure 
     that each eligible full-time employee may enroll in a plan 
     under this chapter.
       ``(2)(A) A participating non-Federal employer may not offer 
     a health insurance plan to employees (other than a health 
     benefits plan under this chapter) unless such health 
     insurance plan is offered continuously on and after the date 
     of enactment of this chapter.
       ``(B) If a participating non-Federal employer offers 
     coverage under this chapter and under another plan as 
     provided under subparagraph (A), the non-Federal employer--
       ``(i) shall treat all employees in the same manner with 
     respect to such offerings; and
       ``(ii) may not use financial incentives or disincentives to 
     encourage an employee or class of employees to enroll in the 
     health insurance plan not offered under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Contract Requirement Under Chapter 89.--Section 8902 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
     subsection (o) the following:
       ``(p) Each contract under this chapter shall include a 
     provision that the carrier shall offer any health benefits 
     plan as required under chapter 90A.''.
       (b) Table of Chapters.--The table of chapters for part III 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to chapter 90 the following:

``90A. Health Insurance for Non-Federal Employees...........9051''.....

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply 
     to contracts that take effect with respect to calendar year 
     2003 and each calendar year thereafter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 3176. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
employers in renewal communities to qualify for the renewal community 
employment credit by employing residents of certain other renewal 
communities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modification of 
legislation I introduced earlier in the 107th Congress relating to the 
Renewal Community program. The Renewal Community program has been 
tremendously valuable in promoting job growth and economic development 
in the poorest areas of the country.
  There are 40 urban and rural renewal community areas designated under 
the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The poverty rate in 
renewal communities is at least 20 percent, and the unemployment rate 
is one-and-a-half times the national level. The households in the 
renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent below the median 
income of households in their local jurisdictions. Four areas of 
Louisiana received renewal community designations.
  Businesses in a renewal community can receive a variety of tax 
benefits for hiring residents of the same renewal community. These tax 
benefits include A $1,500 Federal credit for hiring workers from the 
renewal community, as well as a $2,400 work opportunity credit for 
hiring employees from groups with traditionally high unemployment 
rates. There is one important qualification in the program that poses a 
peculiar problem in Louisiana, as well as a few other parts of the 
country: a business can only take advantage of these credits if it 
hires residents from the same renewal community that the business is 
in.
  Why is this a problem for Louisiana? Because, some of our renewal 
communities border each other. Under the rules of the program, the 
business cannot receive the credit for hiring a resident of a different 
renewal community. In Louisiana, the closest available job for someone 
might be at a business two or three miles away, but if that business is 
not in the same renewal community as the worker, the business cannot 
get the tax credit.
  A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of 
Louisiana, home of the North Louisiana Renewal Community and the 
Ouachita Renewal Community. The city of Monroe is located at the heart 
of the

[[Page 23175]]

Ouachita Renewal Community and it serves as the economic hub for 
Northeast Louisiana. All around Monroe and the Ouachita Renewal 
Community there are parishes which fall in the North Louisiana Renewal 
Community, Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to the east, 
Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. People 
from these parishes will naturally look in Monroe for jobs. But under 
the rule, businesses in Monroe cannot take advantage of the tax credits 
even if they hire wokers from only a short distance away.
  My legislation, the Renewal Community Tax Benefit Improvement Act of 
2002, will allow the employers in one renewal community to hire 
employees from an adjacent or nearby renewal community area and still 
receive the tax benefits granted through the act. The bill I am 
introducing today is a slightly more narrow version of my earlier bill 
to bring needed flexibility to the renewal community program. I am 
pleased that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, is an 
original cosponsor of this bill.
  This legislation is a small change that will make a big difference to 
the people of Louisiana. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 3177. A bill to authorize appropriations for the programs of the 
Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, to amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, Authorization 
Act. The bill is a routine authorization of appropriations for NIST. It 
includes some provisions to change the Institute's Advanced Technology 
Program that were the subject of hearings in the Commerce Committee 
earlier this year. In addition, the bill includes several technical 
changes to the NIST Act which the agency has requested.
  NIST is really a hidden treasure. Twice in the past five years, NIST 
Scientists have shared in the Physics Nobel Prize. Whether they are 
investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, making small 
manufacturers better, sponsoring innovative research, or improving 
timekeeping, the people of this little-noticed agency continue to do 
amazing work, and I commend them.
  Nonetheless, we continue to be embroiled in an annual tug-of-war on 
funding for the Advanced Technology Program, known as ATP. I am 
encouraged that Secretary Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman want to 
stabilize this program. I am introducing this bill to help them in that 
cause by including several of the Department's suggestions to improve 
the ATP.
  The benefits of the ATP are well-documented. The program has been 
studied thoroughly from individual case studies, to comprehensive 
examinations like the 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences' 
National Research Council. The results are clear. ATP is stimulating 
collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies, 
and paying off for the nation.
  The Commerce Department has proposed several changes to the ATP. The 
bill includes provisions to allow universities to lead ATP projects and 
to have interest in the intellectual property developed under those 
projects, as well as provisions to further clarify that projects are to 
remove scientific and technical barriers and to evaluate ATP's review 
process.
  In addition, the bill would clarify that the program should operate 
free of political influence by ensuring that final project decisions 
are made by career NIST officials, as they have been since the 
program's inception.
  However, the Administration's proposal for recoupment of up to 5 
times the original amount of funding is not acceptable and is not 
included. The record on recoupment was made at our hearing in April of 
this year. It is an approach which the program has tried and failed. 
More importantly, recoupment discourages companies from participating 
in the program, imposing overwhelming accounting burdens that companies 
may be unable to fulfill.
  In the end, the bill hopes to build on ATP's tremendous successes. 
Since its inception in 1989 this industry-led, competitive, and cost-
shared program has helped the U.S. develop the next generation of 
breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors.
  The Commerce Committee heard testimony from Scott Donnelly of GE. His 
company, with ATP funding, developed a new method to produce the X-ray 
panels that are the heart of a new digital mammography system. This 
system is giving women and their doctors access to better, cheaper 
digital mammograms.
  A March 1999 study found that future returns from just three of the 
completed ATP projects, improving automobile manufacturing processes, 
reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new 
material for prosthesis devices, would pay for all projects funded to 
date by the ATP.
  The bill also provides full funding for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, MEP, Centers which the Administration has proposed to cut. 
Ironically, these MEP Centers help fulfill one of the top priorities 
stated in the Administration's budget: ``revitalize the economy and 
create jobs.'' MEP helps small manufacturers stay competitive and, in 
2000, helped these businesses attain $2.3 billion in increased or 
retained sales, save costs of $480 million, and create or retain more 
than 25,000 jobs.
  While the time remaining in this session is short, I want to 
introduce this NIST Authorization bill to stimulate the productive 
dialog that we have had with interested members and the Administration 
on the programs of NIST. I look forward to continuing this work during 
the 108th Congress.

                          ____________________