[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4446-4462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 2090. A bill to eliminate any limitation on indictment for sexual 
offenses and make awards to States to reduce their DNA casework 
backlogs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual 
Assault Prosecution Act. This legislation will ensure that no rapist 
will evade prosecution when there is reliable evidence of their guilt.
  As Federal law is written today, a rapist can walk away scot-free if 
they

[[Page 4447]]

are not charged within five years of committing their crime. This is 
true even if overwhelming evidence of the offender's guilt, such as a 
DNA match with evidence taken from the crime scene, is later 
discovered. Some States, including my home State of New Jersey, have 
recognized the injustice presented by this situation and have already 
abolished their statutes of limitations on sexual assault crimes, and 
many other States are considering similar measures. Given the power and 
precision of DNA evidence, it is now time that the Federal Government 
abolish the current statute of limitations on Federal sexual assault 
crimes.
  The precision with which DNA evidence can identify a criminal 
assailant has increased dramatically over the past couple decades. 
Because of its exactness, DNA evidence is now routinely collected by 
law enforcement personnel in the course of investigating many crimes, 
including sexual assault crimes. The DNA profile of evidence collected 
at a sexual assault crime scene can be compared to the DNA profiles of 
convicted criminals, or the profile of a particular suspect, in order 
to determine who committed the crime. Moreover, because of the 
longevity of DNA evidence, it can be used to positively identify a 
rapist many years after the actual sexual assault.
  The enormous advancements in DNA science have greatly expanded law 
enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute sexual assault 
crimes. Unfortunately, the law has not kept pace with science. Given 
the precise accuracy and reliability of DNA testing, however, the legal 
and moral justifications for continuing to impose a statute of 
limitations on sexual assault crimes are extremely weak. To that end, I 
am introducing the ``Sexual Assault Prosecution Act'' which will 
eliminate the statue of limitations for sexual assault crimes. This 
legislation will not affect the burdens of proof and the government 
will still have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before any 
person could be convicted of a crime.
  Currently, the statute of limitations for arson and financial 
institution crimes is 10 years and is 20 years for crimes involving the 
theft of major artwork. If it made sense to extend the traditional 
five-year limitations period for these offenses, surely it makes sense 
to do so for sexual assault crimes, particularly when DNA technology 
makes it possible to identify an offender many years after the 
commission of the crime. By eliminating this ticking clock, we can see 
to it that no victim of sexual assault is denied justice simply because 
the clock ran out. I look forward to working with each and every one of 
you in order to get this legislation enacted into law.
  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. 2090

       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 ``Sexual Assault Prosecution 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. SEXUAL OFFENSE LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3283, by striking ``sexual or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3296. Sexual offenses

       ``An indictment for any offense committed in violation of 
     chapter 109A of this title may be found at any time without 
     limitation.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``3296. Sexual offenses.''.

     SEC. 3. AWARDS TO STATES TO REDUCE DNA CASEWORK BACKLOG.

       (a) Development of Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, in coordination with the Assistant Attorney 
     General of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department 
     of Justice, and after consultation with representatives of 
     States and private forensic laboratories, shall develop a 
     plan to grant voluntary awards to States to facilitate DNA 
     analysis of all casework evidence of unsolved crimes.
       (2) Objective.--The objective of the plan developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be to--
       (A) effectively expedite the analysis of all casework 
     evidence of unsolved crimes in an efficient and effective 
     manner; and
       (B) provide for the entry of DNA profiles into the combined 
     DNA Indexing System (``CODIS'').
       (b) Award Criteria.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     in coordination with the Assistant Attorney General of the 
     Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice, 
     shall develop criteria for the granting of awards under this 
     section including--
       (1) the number of unsolved crimes awaiting DNA analysis in 
     the State that is applying for an award under this section; 
     and
       (2) the development of a comprehensive plan to collect and 
     analyze DNA evidence by the State that is applying for an 
     award under this section.
       (c) Granting of Awards.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, in coordination with the Assistant Attorney 
     General of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department 
     of Justice, shall--
       (1) develop applications for awards to be granted to States 
     under this section;
       (2) consider all applications submitted by States; and
       (3) disburse all awards under this section.
       (d) Award Conditions.--States receiving awards under this 
     section shall--
       (1) require that each laboratory performing DNA analysis 
     satisfies quality assurance standards and utilizes state-of-
     the-art DNA testing methods, as set forth by the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation in coordination with the Assistant 
     Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs of the 
     Department of Justice;
       (2) ensure that each DNA sample collected and analyzed be 
     made available only--
       (A) to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement 
     purposes;
       (B) in judicial proceedings if otherwise admissible;
       (C) for criminal defense purposes, to a criminal defendant 
     who shall have access to samples and analyses performed in 
     connection with any case in which such defendant is charged; 
     or
       (D) if personally identifiable information is removed, 
     for--
       (i) a population statistics database;
       (ii) identification research and protocol development 
     purposes; or
       (iii) quality control purposes; and
       (3) match the award by spending 15 percent of the amount of 
     the award in State funds to facilitate DNA analysis of all 
     casework evidence of unsolved crimes.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $15,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006, for awards to be 
     granted under this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 2091. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code to prohibit 
gunrunning, and provide mandatory minimum penalties for crimes related 
to gunrunning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Gun 
Kingpin Penalty Act. In introducing this bill, I hope that my 
colleagues will soon join me in sending a clear and strong signal to 
gunrunners, your actions will no longer be tolerated.
  Data gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clearly 
demonstrates what many of us already know all too well, several of our 
Nation's highways have become pipelines for merchants of death who deal 
in illegal firearms.
  My own State of New Jersey is proud to have some of the toughest gun 
control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous 
efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been 
weakened by out of State gunrunners who treat our State like their own 
personal retail outlet.
  ATF data shows that in 1996 New Jersey exported fewer guns used in 
crimes, per capita, than any other State, less than one gun per 100,000 
residents, or 75 total guns. Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns 
used to commit crimes in New Jersey came from out of State, 944 guns 
were imported, a net import of 869 illegal guns used to commit crimes 
against the people of New Jersey.
  This represents a one way street, guns come from, States with lax gun 
laws straight to States, like New Jersey, with strong laws. It is clear 
that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals little choice 
but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We must act on a 
Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot continue and 
will not be tolerated.
  The Gun Kingpin Penalty Act would create a new Federal gunrunning 
offense for any person who, within a twelve-month period, transports 
more

[[Page 4448]]

than 5 guns to another State with the intent of transferring all of the 
weapons to another person. The Act would establish mandatory minimum 
penalties for gunrunning as follows: a mandatory 3 year minimum 
sentence for a first offense involving 5-50 guns; a mandatory 5 year 
minimum sentence for second offense involving 5-50 guns; and a 
mandatory 15 year minimum sentence for any offense involving more than 
50 guns.
  We can never rest when it comes to gun violence. This problem will 
not just go away, and we cannot standby and watch as innocent men, 
women and children die at the hands of criminals armed with these guns. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and 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. 2091

       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 ``Gun Kingpin Penalty Act''.

     SEC. 2. GUN KINGPIN PENALTIES.

       (a) Prohibition Against Gunrunning.--Section 922 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(z) It shall be unlawful for a person not licensed under 
     section 923 to ship or transport, or conspire to ship or 
     transport, 5 or more firearms from a State into another State 
     during any period of 12 consecutive months, with the intent 
     to transfer all of such firearms to another person who is not 
     so licensed.''.
       (b) Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Crimes Related to 
     Gunrunning.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1)(A)(i) Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, whoever violates section 922(z) shall be 
     imprisoned not less than 3 years, and may be fined under this 
     title.
       ``(ii) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, in 
     the case of a person's second or subsequent violation of 
     section 922(a), the term of imprisonment shall be not less 
     than 5 years.
       ``(B) If a firearm which is shipped or transported in 
     violation of section 922(z) is used subsequently by the 
     person to whom the firearm was shipped or transported, or by 
     any person within 3 years after the shipment or 
     transportation, in an offense in which a person is killed or 
     suffers serious bodily injury, the term of imprisonment for 
     the violation shall be not less than 10 years.
       ``(C) If more than 50 firearms are the subject of a 
     violation of section 922(z), the term of imprisonment for the 
     violation shall be not less than 15 years.
       ``(D) If more than 50 firearms are the subject of a 
     violation of section 922(z) and 1 of the firearms is used 
     subsequently by the person to whom the firearm was shipped or 
     transported, or by any person within 3 years after the 
     shipment or transportation, in an offense in which a person 
     is killed or suffers serious bodily injury, the term of 
     imprisonment for the violation shall be not less than 25 
     years.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 
     shall not impose a probationary sentence or suspend the 
     sentence of a person convicted of a violation of section 
     922(z), nor shall any term of imprisonment imposed on a 
     person under this subsection run concurrently with any other 
     term of imprisonment imposed on the person by a court of the 
     United States.''.
       (c) Crimes Related to Gunrunning Made Predicate Offenses 
     Under Rico.--Section 1961(1)(B) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting before ``section 1028'' the 
     following: ``section 922(a)(1)(A) (relating to unlicensed 
     importation, manufacture, or dealing in firearms), section 
     922(a)(3) (relating to interstate transportation or receipt 
     of firearm), section 922(a)(5) (relating to transfer of 
     firearm to person from another State), section 922(a)(6) 
     (relating to false statements made in acquisition of firearm 
     or ammunition from licensee), section 922(d) (relating to 
     disposition of firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person), 
     section 922(g) (relating to receipt of firearm or ammunition 
     by a prohibited person), section 922(h) (relating to 
     possession of firearm or ammunition on behalf of a prohibited 
     person), section 922(i) (relating to transportation of stolen 
     firearm or ammunition), section 922(j) (relating to receipt 
     of stolen firearm or ammunition), section 922(k) (relating to 
     transportation or receipt of firearm with altered serial 
     number), section 922(z) (relating to gunrunning), section 
     924(b) (relating to shipment or receipt of firearm for use in 
     a crime),''.
       (d) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding any limitations imposed 
     by or under the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (108 
     Stat. 111), the Secretary of the Treasury may hire and employ 
     200 personnel, in addition to any personnel hired and 
     employed by the Department of the Treasury under other law, 
     to enforce the amendments made by this section.
                                 ______
                                 

      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Levin):

  S. 2108. A bill to amend the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973 to assist the neediest of senior citizens by modifying the 
eligibility criteria for supplemental foods provided under the 
commodity supplemental food program to take into account the 
extraordinarily high out-of-pocket medical expenses that senior 
citizens pay, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Senior 
Nutrition Act that will help prevent our seniors from having to make 
the choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their 
budgets.
  That, is the most horrible of choices.
  The problem, is this:
  The average senior citizen pays over $1,000 per year on prescription 
drugs. Many of these seniors, the majority of whom are widows, depend 
entirely on Social Security for their income and cannot afford to buy 
their prescription drugs without cutting back on their food.
  At the same time, many food banks and other nutrition programs are 
reporting an increase in participation by seniors.
  These same food banks also say they are frustrated that many seniors 
they would like to help are not eligible because under the United 
States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, important nutrition program, 
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, seniors are not able to 
deduct the cost of their medications when seeking eligibility for food 
assistance.
  While clearly in need of help, and clearly deserving of help, these 
seniors have to be turned away.
  Michigan has the greatest number of CSFP participants in the country, 
last year over 80,000 people benefited from this important program in 
my State and 66,123 were seniors. I have a letter from the Director of 
the largest program in our State asking for help. I would like to 
insert his letter for the record because he raises some very important 
points. Most importantly, he points out that if something is not done 
to fix this program, many seniors will be turned away. These are 
seniors just barely getting along, who rely on the modest food package 
provided by the CSFP.
  The Senior Nutrition Act helps resolve this problem and helps the 
neediest seniors by amending the eligibility criteria for nutrition 
assistance provided through the CSFP. Most importantly, the bill 
acknowledges the extraordinarily high out-of-pocket medical expenses 
that senior citizens have and helps these seniors by making many of 
them eligible for the food available through the CSFP. The Senior 
Nutrition Act means the fewer seniors will be forced to make the tough 
choice between medication or food.
  Nationally, 28 States and the District of Columbia participate in the 
CSFP, which works to improve the health of both women with children and 
seniors by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity 
foods. An average of more than 388,000 people each month participated 
in the CSFP during fiscal year 2000. Of those, 293,000 were elderly and 
that number is on the rise. This program is important for anyone who 
cares about making sure seniors have enough to eat.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Senior Nutrition Act, makes the 
following important changes: one: In those areas where CSFP operates, 
categorical eligibility is granted for seniors for the CSFP if the 
individual participates or is eligible to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. No further verification of income would be necessary in such 
cases. The Food Stamp Program provides a medical expense deduction, 
which seniors may use to account for their high prescription drug 
costs.
  Two: This bill says that the same income standard that is currently 
used to determine eligibility for women, infants and children in the 
CSFP, 185 percent of the Poverty Income Guidelines, would be applied to 
seniors as well. The current income eligibility standard for

[[Page 4449]]

seniors has been capped by regulation at just 130 percent. Under the 
current standards a single senior must earn no more than $11,518 per 
year to qualify. By raising the standard to 185 percent of poverty, the 
same senior can earn as much as $16,391 to qualify for food. This will 
make a major difference in the lives of so many seniors who are 
struggling with the high cost of prescription drugs.
  Finally, this bill establishes an authorization for the CSFP that 
will double the current appropriation levels to $200 million over five 
years to accommodate any expansion that may occur in the program due to 
the changes in eligibility standards.
  This bill has been endorsed by the National CSFP Association. I would 
like to submit a copy of their letter for the Record.
  The golden years should be bright and active years for our seniors. 
They should not be lived in a grey dusk of indifference as we sit by 
and watch them make literal life and death decisions between food and 
medicine.
  I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as original 
cosponsors of this bill, Senators Levin and Domenici. Together, I know 
we can make a difference for seniors.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and that the 
letters from Mr. Frank Kubik and Ms. Barb Packett be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2108

       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 ``Senior Nutrition Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) senior citizens in the United States have significant 
     out-of-pocket costs for medical expenses, especially for 
     prescription drugs;
       (2) 3 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries do not have dependable, 
     affordable, prescription drug coverage;
       (3) as medical costs continue to rise, many senior citizens 
     are forced to make the difficult choice between purchasing 
     prescription drugs and purchasing food;
       (4) the commodity supplemental food program provides 
     supplemental nutritious foods to senior citizens in a number 
     of States and localities;
       (5) under the commodity supplemental food program--
       (A) women, infants, and children with household incomes up 
     to 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines 
     published annually by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services may be eligible for supplemental foods; but
       (B) senior citizens are ineligible for supplemental foods 
     if their household incomes are greater than 130 percent of 
     the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines;
       (6) during fiscal year 2000--
       (A) an average of more than 388,000 people each month 
     participated in the commodity supplemental food program; and
       (B) the majority of those participants, 293,000, were 
     senior citizens; and
       (7) in order to serve the neediest senior citizens, taking 
     into account their high out-of-pocket medical (including 
     prescription drug) expenses, the eligibility requirements for 
     the commodity supplemental food program should be modified to 
     make more senior citizens eligible for the supplemental foods 
     provided under the program.

     SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF ELDERLY PERSONS UNDER THE COMMODITY 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer 
     Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (d)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``provide not less'' and inserting 
     ``provide, to the Secretary of Agriculture, not less'';
       (B) by inserting ``, or such greater quantities of cheese 
     and nonfat dry milk as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary,'' after ``nonfat dry milk''; and
       (C) by striking ``in each of the fiscal years 1991 through 
     2002 to the Secretary of Agriculture'' and inserting ``in 
     each fiscal year'';
       (2) in subsection (i)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and indenting 
     appropriately; and
       (B) by striking ``(i) Each'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Programs Serving Elderly Persons.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--An elderly person shall be eligible to 
     participate in a commodity supplemental food program serving 
     elderly persons if the elderly person is at least 60 years of 
     age and--
       ``(A) is eligible for food stamp benefits under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); or
       ``(B) has a household income that is less than or equal to 
     185 percent of the most recent Federal Poverty Income 
     Guidelines published by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.
       ``(2) Provision of information.--Each''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out the commodity supplemental food program--
       ``(A) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(B) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(C) $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(D) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(E) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(F) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2008 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(2) Limitation on use of funds.--None of the funds made 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be available to reimburse 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities donated to 
     the commodity supplemental food program.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection 
     Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended 
     by striking ``Secretary (1) may'' and all that follows 
     through ``(2) shall'' and inserting ``Secretary shall''.
       (2) Section 5(g) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection 
     Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended 
     by striking ``(as defined by the Secretary)'' and inserting 
     ``described in subsection (i)(1)''.
                                  ____

                                                February 21, 2002.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: I am writing this letter to ask for 
     your continued support for the Commodity Supplemental Food 
     Program. We are facing some potential problems in the 
     upcoming months that I would like to bring to your attention.
       For FY02 we may be seeing program participation threaten to 
     exceed our assigned caseload of 42,700 here at Focus: HOPE as 
     well as other programs nationally that are at or above their 
     assigned caseloads due to the downturn in the economy. 
     November saw us serve 43,553 and 42,902 participated in 
     January. These are traditionally slow months for us and my 
     concern is that if we continue to serve over one hundred per 
     cent of our caseload and additional resources are not found, 
     we may be faced with the prospect of removing senior citizens 
     from our program. The Department of Agriculture has done an 
     outstanding job in assigning caseload nationally to maximize 
     its usage but if this participation trend continues they may 
     not have the ability to meet the demand. Seniors depend 
     heavily on the nutritious commodities provided by CSFP. In 
     many cases this is a lifeline for them by not only giving 
     them access to the food but also the additional services many 
     CSFP's are able to bring to the seniors by the strong use of 
     volunteers and other community programs.
       My hope is that we will not get to the point of removing 
     seniors from the program and that additional caseload, if 
     needed, can be found.
       Another point I would like to bring up is the plight of 
     senior citizens who are over the income guideline limits of 
     one hundred and thirty per cent of the poverty level and are 
     ineligible for CSFP. We routinely have to turn away seniors 
     who's income is over the guidelines yet have major expenses 
     in the way of prescriptions and other medical care that 
     leaves very little to live on for the rest of the month. The 
     average income of a senior on our program is around $520 a 
     month. Even though the maximum amount for participation is 
     $931 a month we find many who don't qualify due to the 
     reasons I've mentioned. A possible solution is to increase 
     the senior income guidelines to the same amount as mothers 
     and children who are participating in CSFP of one hundred and 
     eighty five per cent of the poverty level. Originally when 
     the senior program was piloted in 1983, the income guidelines 
     were the same. They were reduced after the seniors were 
     permanently added to the program. Increasing the income 
     guidelines would address the needs of a growing senior 
     population while still maintaining priority to mothers and 
     children in the program as required by regulations.
       I know that this is a time of tightening budgets but I am 
     hopeful that a way will be found to continue to support this 
     much needed program that has made a difference in so many of 
     our most vulnerable citzens.
       I am most appreciative of all of your support for Focus: 
     HOPE and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Frank Kubik,
     CSFP Manager.
                                  ____



                                    National CSFP Association,

                                                   March 18, 2002.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: The National Commodity Supplemental 
     Food Program

[[Page 4450]]

     (CSFP) Association strongly supports your efforts to 
     introduce and pass The Stabenow/Domenici Senior Nutrition Act 
     in the upcoming weeks.
       CSFP enables us to reach the most vulnerable seniors along 
     with mothers and children every month with a food package 
     designed to supplement protein, calcium, iron and vitamin A & 
     C. The Hunger in America 2001 study done by America's Second 
     Harvest reports that of the people seeking emergency food 
     assistance, 30 percent had to choose between paying for food 
     and paying for medicine or medical care. By amending the 
     eligibility criteria for the seniors served by CSFP, this Act 
     will assist the neediest of seniors in receiving nutrition 
     assistance they so desperately need to remain in better 
     health.
       On behalf of the Association, let me thank you again for 
     all your efforts on behalf of the CSFP and the participants 
     we serve. We are committed to supporting The Stabenow/
     Domenici Senior Nutrition Action.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barb Packett,
                                        Legislative Affairs Chair.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the Senior Nutrition Act. This legislation which is 
cosponsored by my friend and colleague from my home state of Michigan, 
Senator Stabenow as well as my good friend Senator Domenici seeks to 
address in inequity in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, 
that I have long sought to address.
  CSFP is an important U.S. Department of Agriculture commodity food 
program that serves nearly four hundred thousand individuals every 
month, many of whom live in my home state of Michigan. The vast 
majority of these individuals are senior citizens. In fact, CSFP is the 
primary senior commodity program of the USDA. The average senior 
citizen pays $1000 dollars per year to purchase prescription drugs, and 
many senior citizens living on fixed incomes, are forced to choose 
between prescription drugs and food.
  Given the dire choices facing many seniors, reforming the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program so that it can serve more seniors is a matter 
of great importance. This legislation seeks to increase the ability of 
seniors to get the food that they need by granting categorical 
eligibility for seniors if they can participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. Additional verification is not needed in this case. The Food 
Stamp Program provides a medical expense deduction which seniors may 
use to account for their high prescription drug costs. This legislation 
will also raise the CSFP eligibility level for seniors to 185 percent 
of the poverty level. Raising the eligibility level to 185 percent of 
the poverty level, from the current level of 130 percent, would make 
eligibility levels consistent for women with children and senior 
citizens. In addition this bill will raise the authorized level for 
CSFP to $200 million of funding over 5 years. This will ensure that all 
eligible to receive food under CSFP will do so while allowing for the 
expansion of the program beyond the 28 States and the District of 
Columbia which currently participate in the program.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and would 
like to thank Senators Stabenow and Domenici for their hard work in 
crafting this legislation. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join 
us in supporting and assign this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 2110. A bill to temporarily increase the Federal Medicare 
assistance percentage for the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased today to rise, with my 
good friend Senator Ben Nelson, to introduce a bill that would assist 
States through a period when many are experiencing a fiscal crisis. 
Stated simply, for the remainder of this year and next, the bill would 
increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs 
by 1.5 percent and hold the Federal matching rate for each State 
harmless in order to provide approximately $7 billion in fiscal relief 
to States and allow them to expand, not contract, their Medicaid 
programs.
  Last month, I was pleased to join with an overwhelming number of our 
colleagues in passing an economic recovery bill that extended benefits 
for unemployed workers and provide depreciation incentives for 
businesses to invest in new facilities and equipment. In short, the 
bill provided welcome relief to our unemployed workers and to our 
economy. But it also posed a difficult choice to State governments.
  In all but a handful of States, corporate and individual income taxes 
are calculated based on the Federal tax code's definition of income. 
Thus, when we change how taxable income is calculated under the Federal 
code, the changes automatically affect the amount of tax collected by 
States. It has been estimated, for example, that the tax changes made 
by the economic recovery package will reduce State revenues by $14 
billion. States can avoid the revenue loss by ``decoupling'' their tax 
policies from Federal law, but they do so at a price. Decoupling 
increases the complexity of paying taxes and forces businesses to 
devote more resources to compliance. At the most basic level, they 
would have to calculate taxes two different ways and would have to 
factor the dueling tax consequences into their business decisions.
  States that automatically or affirmatively decide to conform to the 
tax law changes in the economic recovery package are faced with finding 
ways to cover the loss in expected revenue. This could mean making 
painful cuts in important areas such as health care, transportation, 
and education. My home State of Maine was faced with a $27 million 
revenue loss over the next two years if it chose to conform to the 
Federal tax law changes, and this on top of a much larger structural 
budget shortfall. The resulting bleak picture forced the State 
legislature to contemplate some extremely problematic alternatives, 
including cuts in the State Medicaid program.
  Today, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets. 
While State revenues were stagnant or declined in many States last 
year, Medicaid costs increased 11 percent. Maine is only one of a 
number of States that has been forced to consider cuts in their 
Medicaid programs to make up for their budget shortfalls.
  Earlier this year, Maine was facing a $248 million revenue shortfall. 
Faced with nothing but tough choices, our Governor proposed $58 million 
in Medicaid cuts, including reductions in payments to hospitals, 
nursing homes, group homes, and physicians. He was also forced to 
propose a delay in the enactment of legislation passed by the State 
Legislature last year to expand Medicaid to provide health coverage to 
an estimated 16,000 low-income uninsured Mainers.
  While subsequent revisions in the State's revenue forecasts enabled 
the Governor to restore most of these Medicaid cuts, the loss of 
revenue due to the tax law changes in the economic recovery package 
could very well put them back on the table, particularly because the 
Maine legislature has decided to defer a decision on whether to fully 
conform in 2002 to the bonus depreciation provisions of the economic 
recovery package until its next legislative session.
  The legislation I am introducing today will help to bridge Maine's 
funding gap by bringing an additional $40 million to my State's 
Medicaid program over the next two years. This should not only 
forestall the need for any further cuts, but will also provide 
additional funds to Maine to proceed with its plans to expand its 
Medicaid program to provide health care coverage for more of our low-
income uninsured.
  I do not want Maine or other States to have to choose between helping 
our economy recover from recession and helping people in need. Our 
States need more Federal assistance in providing health care services 
through Medicaid, not less, which is why I am introducing this bill 
today. By increasing the Federal medical assistance percentage for all 
States this year and next, we can relieve the pressure put on States to 
cut spending on important programs while increasing their capacity to 
provide services through Medicaid. I urge our colleagues to join 
Senator Nelson and me in this effort.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk

[[Page 4451]]

about a bill I plan on introducing later on today with my good friend 
Senator Susan Collins. I am pleased to say that our legislation could 
be considered the next step in economic stimulus. A little more than a 
month ago, this body passed and the President signed a bill to 
stimulate the economy and help workers. It was not a perfect bill, but 
few are. But the economy was hurting and it was time to act.
  One of the unintended consequences of the stimulus bill was a revenue 
loss for many states. The final package included a provision that will 
stimulate business development through tax incentives. Unfortunately, 
because the majority of states ``couple'' their tax rates to the 
federal tax rates, this benefit for businesses will mean an estimated 
$14 billion loss in state revenues. States can avoid the revenue loss 
by decoupling from the federal law, but this approach is not without 
its own traps and pitfalls. Decoupling makes the tax codes of states 
just that much more confusing.
  Many states have explored ways to decouple, or in simpler terms, they 
have searched for ways to hold their state harmless from the 
experienced revenue loss. In fact, the state Legislature in Nebraska is 
considering such a measure today, as it attempts to find a way out of 
it's expected $119 million budget shortfall.
  We must now take steps to alleviate the unintended impact of the tax 
reductions on state budgets. In previously debated stimulus packages, a 
provision was included that would have helped state governments by 
increasing the federal contribution of the Federal Medicaid Assistance 
Percentage, FMAP, by 1.5 percent. This provision enjoyed wide support. 
Unfortunately, and over the objections of the crafters of the Centrist 
stimulus plan, it was not included in the final package signed by 
President Bush.
  Even before the passage of the stimulus bill, Medicaid costs were 
rising at the same time state tax revenues were decreasing. States are 
now faced with the choice of either cutting Medicaid services or 
diverting funding from other essential programs to fund Medicaid. This 
``choice'' is no choice at all either cut health care service to 
Medicaid recipients or cut funding for schools, roads, police and 
firefighters. In a time of economic turmoil this ``choice'' can stall 
the economic recovery the stimulus bill was meant to jump-start.
  Our bill would revive the FMAP provision this body earlier 
considered. It would provide a direct response to the false ``choice'' 
faced by states. This bill will alleviate state's Medicaid liabilities 
by increasing the federal government's contribution to the Medicaid 
program by 1.5 percent for this year and next. This would mean an 
additional $7 billion for states. In Nebraska, the savings would amount 
to an estimated $42.7 million. This more than offsets the $34 million 
that Nebraska is expected to lose if they comply with the business tax 
incentives in the stimulus bill and would in fact provide $8.7 million 
on top of what was lost.
  A month ago, we took steps to help the economy recover and to help 
workers. Today, we need to take an additional step to help states 
struggling with fiscal calamity. With this increase in federal Medicaid 
assistance throughout this year and next, states will be given some 
breathing room to deal with the difficult choices they face in 
balancing their budgets. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins 
and I in this effort and show the states that Congress is not 
indifferent to their budget problems and that we will step in and 
provide meaningful assistance at a time when governors need it most.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Nebraska 
for recognizing the extraordinary burdens that are being placed on our 
States both because of the economic slowdown and the increase in health 
costs, as well as the effects of the 9-11 attacks in our State 
particularly, but also because of the unintended consequences of some 
of the efforts that were undertaken in the stimulus bill to stimulate 
investment which have the direct effect of further cutting State 
revenues.
  As a former Governor, I know our colleague from Nebraska understands 
this intimately. I very much appreciate his leadership on this issue 
and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Senator.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 2113. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on N-
Cyclohexylthiophthalimide; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this bill 
today with Senators Specter and Byrd to temporarily suspend a portion 
of the tariff applicable to a specific chemical product, N-
(Cyclohexylthio)-phthalimide, which is usually referred to as ``PVI,'' 
and thereby provide for greater economic growth.
  Import duties are intimately related to the tax and trade policies of 
the United States. Just as Congress expressly imposes duties on 
imported goods to protect specific domestic industries and at the same 
time raise revenue, Congress abolishes, reduces, or suspends duties to 
encourage domestic business enterprise and export activity, 
particularly if a specific domestic industry will not be harmed. This 
is the situation applicable to PVI.
  PVI stands for ``Pre-Vulcanization Inhibitor,'' which means that PVI 
retards the onset of the vulcanization when rubber is being processed. 
In other words, PVI functions as a safeguard when rubber articles are 
being manufactured. There is no direct substitute product for PVI.
  As you might expect, there is a reasonable demand for this product in 
the U.S. rubber industry, particularly in the tire industry. To meet 
this demand, various companies around the world now manufacture PVI and 
export it to the United States; however, PVI is not manufactured in the 
United States.
  Therefore, the U.S. economy is paying a duty for the use of PVI, but 
no domestic industry is being protected. Therefore, this tariff should 
be suspended to the maximum extent possible. This legislation would 
suspend the tariff above the 2 percent level, which will provide for 
greater economic growth for the United States.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this initiative. 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. 2113

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

     SECTION 1. N-CYCLOHEXYLTHIOPHTHALIMIDE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

``      9902.29.82        N-                      3%        No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           Cyclohexylthiophthali                                             31/2005          ''
                           mide (CAS No. 17796-                                                                .
                           82-6) (provided for
                           in subheading
                           2930.90.24)..........

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2114. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to carry out a 
racial profiling educating and awareness program within the Department 
of Justice and to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in 
implementing

[[Page 4452]]

such programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, we've heard all too often of 
situations in cities and towns across the country in which concerns 
over racial profiling are creating serious divisions between 
communities and law enforcement agencies. Despite the shared interest 
each have in fighting crime and making neighborhoods safer, mistrust 
and wariness stands in the way of cooperation.
  Today I introduced a bill entitled the ``Racial Profiling Education 
and Awareness Act of 2002'' that I believe will put us on the road to 
preventing problems caused by racial profiling and help begin 
reconciliation in communities torn apart by racial unrest connected to 
police-community relations.
  Rooted in the belief that education and dialogue are the most 
effective tools for bridging racial divides, my bill establishes a 
program within the Department of Justice to educate city leaders, 
police chiefs, and law enforcement personnel on the problems of racial 
profiling and the value of community outreach, as well as to recognize 
and disseminate information on ``best practice'' procedures for 
addressing police-community racial issues.
  My experience as mayor of Cleveland and governor of Ohio has taught 
me that reaching the hearts and minds of people is the most effective 
means of dealing with intolerance and the problems that result.
  As mayor of Cleveland I established the city's first urban coalition, 
the Cleveland Roundtable, to bring together representatives of the 
city's various racial, religious and economic groups to create a common 
agenda. I also established a one-week sensitivity training course for 
all Cleveland police officers and created six police district community 
relations committees to open lines of communication between police 
officers and community members.
  As governor, I launched efforts to increase community outreach by law 
enforcement in order to foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial, 
relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Through my 
``Governor's Challenge,'' I worked to bring members of local 
communities together with law enforcement officials and members of the 
business community in order to educate and break down barriers that 
lead to intolerance. Outstanding communities were recognized for their 
efforts.
  On Friday, April 12, 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft is scheduled to 
travel to Cincinnati, Ohio to endorse a settlement agreement between 
the Cincinnati Police Department and the Department of Justice. The 
settlement is in reference to a Federal lawsuit, filed last March that 
alleges a 30-year pattern of racial profiling by the department. Just 
one month after the suit was filed, riots broke out in the city of 
Cincinnati after a white officer shot and killed an unarmed black 
teenager in a foot chase. The riots prompted Mayor Luken of Cincinnati 
to invite the Justice Department to review the practices and procedures 
of the Cincinnati Police Department and make recommendations for 
improvement.
  What results is a settlement, endorsed by all parties, including the 
local Fraternal Order of Police chapter and the local ACLU chapter, 
which sets forth several recommendations for the department, including 
revising procedures governing the use of deadly force, choke holds and 
irritant spray; increasing training requirements; and keeping a 
database of all citizen-reported positive interactions with police. 
Most importantly in my eyes, however, is the requirement that the 
department works to improve relations between communities and the 
police.
  I firmly believe that Cincinnati can become a model for turning 
around a difficult situation and building good community-police 
relations. And I believe that if other cities and towns throughout the 
country can open the lines of communication between their communities 
and law enforcement as Cincinnati is doing, they can prevent problems 
from ever happening.
  The overwhelming majority of State and local law enforcement agents 
throughout the Nation discharge their duties professionally and justly. 
I salute them for their committed efforts in what is one of America's 
toughest jobs. It is unfortunate that the misdeeds of a minute few have 
such a corrosive effect on the police-community relationship. Through 
education and dialogue we can help turn situations around so that 
groups who once thought they had little in common can realize how much 
they actually have to gain by working together to make our communities 
safer places to live.
  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. 2114

       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 ``Racial Profiling Education 
     and Awareness Act of 2002.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Whereas, the overwhelming majority of state and local law 
     enforcement agents throughout the nation discharge their 
     duties professionally and without bias.
       Whereas, a large majority of individuals subjected to stops 
     and other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, or 
     national origin are found to be law-abiding and therefore 
     racial profiling is not an effective means to uncover 
     criminal activity.
       Whereas, racial profiling should not be confused with 
     criminal profiling, which is a legitimate tool in fighting 
     crime.
       Whereas, racial profiling violates the Equal Protection 
     Clause of the Constitution. Using race, ethnicity, or 
     national origin as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates 
     the constitutional requirement that police and other 
     government officials accord to all citizens the equal 
     protection of the law. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan 
     Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     law enforcement agencies and civil rights organizations, 
     shall establish an education and awareness program on racial 
     profiling and the negative effects of racial profiling on 
     individuals and law enforcement.
       (b) Purposes of Program.--The purposes of this new 
     educational program are to (1) encourage state and local law 
     enforcement agencies to cease existing practices that may 
     promote racial profiling, (2) encourage involvement with the 
     community to address the problem of racial profiling, (3) 
     assist state and local law enforcement agencies in developing 
     and maintaining adequate policies and procedures to prevent 
     racial profiling, and (4) assist state and local law 
     enforcement agencies in developing and implementing internal 
     training programs to combat racial profiling and to foster 
     enhanced community relations.
       (c) Program for Local Law Enforcement Agencies.--The 
     education and awareness program and materials developed 
     pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall be offered to state 
     and local law enforcement agencies.
       (d) Regional Programs.--The education and awareness program 
     developed pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall be 
     offered at various regional centers across the country to 
     ensure that all law enforcement agencies have reasonable 
     access to the program.

     SEC. 4. EVALUATION OF BEST PRACTICES.

       (a) Performance Measures.--The Department of Justice shall 
     develop measures to evaluate the performance of programs 
     implemented under Section 3(b)(4).
       (b) Evaluation According To Performance Measures.--Applying 
     the performance measures developed under subsection (a), the 
     Department of Justice shall evaluate programs implemented 
     under section 3(b)(4)--
       (1) to judge their performance and effectiveness;
       (2) to identify which of the programs represents the best 
     practices to combat racial profiling; and
       (3) to identify which of the programs may be replicated and 
     used to provide assistance to other law enforcement agencies.
       (c) Applying the performance measures developed under 
     subsection (a), the Department of Justice shall work with 
     those state and local law enforcement agencies that would 
     most benefit from the education program and materials 
     developed under section three in order to assist them in 
     implementing a plan for the prevention of racial profiling 
     within their agency.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 2115. A bill to amend the Public Health Act to create a Center for 
Bioterrorism Preparedness within the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page 4453]]

  Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to create a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response 
within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This center will 
be the first in the Federal Government to be dedicated solely to 
protecting the Nation against the public health threats posed by 
biological, chemical, and radiological weapons attacks.
  The monumental importance of this task, compounded by the potentially 
devastating consequences of a failure to give it the national 
commitment it deserves, makes the creation of a single center that will 
focus all its energies and resources on encountering the public health 
threat of bioterrorism imperative and of the greatest urgency.
  The events of last fall made it painfully clear that we as a nation 
are not as prepared as we need to be to deal with a bioterrorist 
attack.
  The Federal response to the anthrax crisis has been variously 
characterized as fragmented, slow, confused, ineffectual--in a word, 
inadequate. This is in no way a reflection on the dedication or 
abilities of the men and women who performed so exceptionally well in 
their roles at the Federal, State, and local level in response to a 
threat none of us had encountered before. They did not let us down. If 
anything, we, the Congress of the United States, let them down through 
years of neglect of the public health sector and by failing to give 
adequate recognition sooner to the threat posed to us by bioterrorism.
  It was not until 1999 that the Department of Health and Human 
Services launched its bioterrorism initiative. The military had 
understood and taken steps to counter the threat of biological warfare 
against our troops decades earlier. But it took the civilian sector 
until 3 years ago even to begin to take seriously the threat of 
domestic terrorism.
  Today not one of us could possibly fail to understand how serious the 
threat posed by bioterrorism truly is. Some among us were the intended 
targets of last fall's bioterrorist attack. All of us keenly felt the 
threat.
  Between 1999 and 2001, we spent in this Nation a total of $730 
million on HHS's bioterrorism initiative, the lion's share of which was 
used by the CDC to bolster bioterrorism preparedness and response 
capacity of State and local health departments.
  This initiative was a good start, but it is now clear that between 
1999 and September 11, 2001, we continued to grossly underestimate the 
national commitment that would be required to counter the threat of 
bioterrorism.
  Finally, late last year, as we finished allocating funds for fiscal 
year 2002 in the wake of September 11 and the anthrax attacks, we 
boosted HHS bioterrorism spending to $3 billion, roughly a tenfold 
increase.
  Congress is often accused of being reactive instead of proactive, and 
I think that criticism is, I am sad to say, valid in this case. 
Certainly a dramatic ratcheting up to our commitment to bioterrorism 
defense was the right reaction to the events of last fall. But now we 
are presented with the opportunity, and I think the obligation, to take 
proactive steps to anticipate future threats and needs based on our 
recent experiences.
  My proposal today is just such a step, and I exhort my colleagues in 
this body and in the House to support the immediate authorization of a 
National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response.
  The CDC is on the public health front in the war against domestic 
terrorism, the tip of the spear. It is not the only weapon in our 
arsenal. The CDC joins the National Institutes of Health, the Food and 
Drug Administration, and Health Resources and Services Administration, 
the many State and local health departments, and many others on the 
front line. But the CDC is the one with the greatest responsibility in 
the event of a bioterrorist attack.
  Despite the critical nature of these responsibilities, we must 
remember how new they are to the CDC, especially relative to the CDC's 
56 years of experience addressing public health threats of a 
fundamentally different nature.
  The threat posed by bioterrorism bears a surface resemblance to that 
posed by more conventional disease outputs. But closer inspection 
reveals real substantive differences, and a recognition of these 
differences can make the difference between an effective and 
ineffective emergency response.
  The scientists and other experts at the National Center for 
Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Environmental Health 
are highly skilled in controlling and preventing disease outbreaks of a 
natural origin, but when it comes to bioterrorism, they are treading 
new ground without a compass.
  CDC's rapid response personnel, in the absence of the specialized and 
focused bioterrorism training that a national center could provide, 
will inevitably bring to bear epidemiological models and methods that, 
while exceptionally effective in approaching naturally occurring 
disease outbreaks, are poorly suited to manmade outbreaks.
  As my friend and former Senator Sam Nunn so wonderfully noted in 
testimony to Congress just months before September 11 of last year:

       A biological weapons attack cuts across categories and 
     mocks old strategies.

  We need a new approach. Under the present structure, CDC's 
bioterrorism preparedness and response efforts exist alongside and are 
dispersed among its more traditional programs. This is the prevailing 
state of affairs because HHS's bioterrorism initiative is still 
relatively new, not because it is the ideal method of organizing CDC's 
response to bioterrorism, but the time has come to give the CDC's 
bioterrorism defense efforts the focus they deserve.
  Counterbioterrorism activities at the CDC jumped from zero percent of 
the CDC's overall budget in 1998 to 4 percent in 2001 and 34 percent in 
2002.
  Each of the CDC's other major programs, none of which now even 
approaches the bioterrorism program in terms of size, has been given a 
national center with its own director, its own budget authority, and 
own accountability to Congress.
  The CDC's Bioterrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response Program, 
by contrast, is not even funded through the CDC. Its resources come 
from the external public health and social service emergency fund.
  In the Children's Health Act of 2000, we authorized a National Center 
on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, not because the CDC 
had no prior programs relating to birth defects and developmental 
disabilities, but rather because only in their own dedicated center 
could these programs receive the focus and priority they deserve.
  There is a National Center for Health Statistics, but there is right 
now no National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. It 
seems to me that if a dedicated center is called for by the need for 
accurate health statistics, the urgent need for a comprehensive, 
effective, and focused defense against bioterrorism certainly demands 
one as well.
  Under my legislation, the National Center for Bioterrorism 
Preparedness and Response would be charged with the following 
responsibilities: training, preparing, and equipping bioterrorism 
emergency response teams, who will become the special forces of the 
Public Health Service, for the unique purpose of immediate emergency 
response to a man-made assault on the public health; overseeing, 
expanding, and improving the laboratory response network; and that is a 
mission; developing response plans for all conceivable contingencies 
involving terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction, that is 
much needed and developing protocols of coordination and communication 
between Federal, State, and local actors, as well as between different 
Federal actors, in collaboration with these entities, for each of those 
contingencies, which is highly needed; maintaining, managing, and 
deploying the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, what an important 
challenge that is; regulating and tracking the possession, use, and 
transfer of dangerous biological, chemical, and radiological agents 
that the Secretary of HHS determines pose a threat to the public 
health; developing and implementing disease surveillance

[[Page 4454]]

systems, including a nationwide secure electronic network linking 
doctors, hospitals, public health departments, and the CDC, for the 
early detection, identification, collection, and monitoring of 
terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction; administering 
grants to state and local public health departments for building core 
capacities, such as the Health Alert Network; and organizing and 
carrying out simulation exercises with respect to terrorist attacks 
involving biological, chemical, or radiological weapons in close 
coordination with other relevant federal, state, and local actors.
  This Center is designed specifically to complement HHS's existing 
structure for the coordination of its multi-agency counter-bioterrorism 
initiative. At present, the Director of the Office of Public Health 
Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the bioterrorism functions 
of the CDC with those of the NIH, with those of the FDA and so forth. 
The housing of all the CDC's bioterrorism functions in one dedicated 
center will facilitate the Director's coordination task by providing a 
single point of contact within the CDC for its bioterrorism defense 
efforts. When the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and 
Response goes online, the CDC will benefit from a much more focused and 
prioritized bioterrorism mandate; the Office of Public Health 
Preparedness will benefit from a streamlining of its coordination 
duties; and the American people will benefit from a firmer, sounder, 
stronger defense against bioterrorism.
  Let me be clear that what I am proposing is not an added layer of 
bureaucracy. Most of the responsibilities that would be assigned to the 
National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response already 
accrue to the CDC in Atlanta. My legislation would gather these 
existing bioterrorism functions from their various locations throughout 
the CDC, which has 21 different buildings, I might add, and bring them 
all under one roof, one center--an elimination of bureaucratic layers, 
not an addition of a new one. There are a few new responsibilities that 
my legislation would charge to the Center that do not currently reside 
with the CDC, but I challenge anyone to claim that they constitute 
merely an added layer of bureaucracy. Where there are new 
responsibilities--for instance, the tracking and regulation not merely 
of the transfer but of the possession and use of deadly biological 
toxins--it is only in instances of national security imperatives of the 
highest order.
  In 1947, President Truman advocated and presided over the creation of 
the National Military Establishment, a new department bringing the 
Departments of War and Navy under one aegis. In 1949, the National 
Military Establishment was renamed the Department of Defense. President 
Truman recognized in the waning days of World War II that the Nation's 
military as it was then structured would be incapable of meeting future 
threats. That is important. The Department of Defense, with its unified 
command structure and cohesive focus on national defense, was his 
solution to the problem. Today, we all know how well the Department of 
Defense has served us. In the 1980s, President Reagan appointed the 
first drug czar to lend focus to what had previously been a loosely 
dispersed and consequently ineffectual war on drugs. More recently, 
President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security because he 
recognized that we need one office and one director whose sole 
responsibility is to ensure the security of our homeland. In this same 
tradition, I propose a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness 
and Response. When a threat--be it our inability to win future wars, 
rampant drug use, or terrorist designs on our homeland--reaches 
critical proportions, our Nation has historically responded by creating 
a focal point whose sole mandate is addressing that threat. Today, I 
can say without fear of contradiction that the threat of bioterrorism 
has surpassed the critical threshold. In my view, we are therefore 
called upon by history and by our obligation to future generations to 
create a dedicated National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and 
Response.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2115

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

     SECTION 1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND 
                   RESPONSE.

       Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

  ``PART R--NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

     ``SEC. 399Z-1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS 
                   AND RESPONSE.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established within the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention a center to be known as 
     the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and 
     Response (referred to in this section as the `Center') that 
     shall be headed by a director appointed by the Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Director of the Center shall--
       ``(1) administer grants to State and local public health 
     entities, such as health departments, academic institutions, 
     and other public health partners to upgrade public health 
     core capacities, including--
       ``(A) improving surveillance and epidemiology;
       ``(B) increasing the speed of laboratory diagnosis;
       ``(C) ensuring a well-trained public health workforce; and
       ``(D) providing timely, secure communications and 
     information systems (such as the Health Alert Network);
       ``(2) maintain, manage, and in a public health emergency 
     deploy, the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile administered by 
     the Centers for Disease Control;
       ``(3) ensure that all States have functional plans in place 
     for effective management and use of the National 
     Pharmaceutical Stockpile should it be deployed;
       ``(4) establish, in consultation with the Department of 
     Justice, the Department of Energy, and the Department of 
     Defense, a list of biological, chemical, and radiological 
     agents and toxins that could pose a severe threat to public 
     health and safety;
       ``(5) at least every 6 months review, and if necessary 
     revise, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the 
     Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, the list 
     established in paragraph (4);
       ``(6) regulate and track the agents and toxins listed 
     pursuant to paragraph (4) by--
       ``(A) in consultation and coordination with the Department 
     of Justice, the Department of Energy, and the Department of 
     Defense--
       ``(i) establishing procedures for access to listed agents 
     and toxins, including a screening protocol to ensure that 
     individual access to listed agents and toxins is limited; and
       ``(ii) establishing safety standards and procedures for the 
     possession, use, and transfer of listed agents and toxins, 
     including reasonable security requirements for persons 
     possessing, using, or transferring listed agents, so as to 
     protect public health and safety; and
       ``(B) requiring registration for the possession, use, and 
     transfer of listed agents and toxins and maintaining a 
     national database of the location of such agents and toxins; 
     and
       ``(7) train, prepare, and equip bioterrorism emergency 
     response teams, composed of members of the Epidemic 
     Intelligence Service, who will be dispatched immediately in 
     the event of a suspected terrorist attack involving 
     biological, chemical, or radiological weapons;
       ``(8) expand and improve the Laboratory Response Network;
       ``(9) organize and carry out simulation exercises with 
     respect to terrorist attacks involving biological, chemical, 
     or radiological weapons, in coordination with State and local 
     governments for the purpose of assessing preparedness;
       ``(10) develop and implement disease surveillance measures, 
     including a nationwide electronic network linking doctors, 
     hospitals, public health departments, and the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, for the early detection, 
     identification, collection, and monitoring of terrorist 
     attacks involving biological, chemical, or radiological 
     weapons;
       ``(11) develop response plans for all conceivable 
     contingencies involving terrorist attacks with biological, 
     chemical, or radiological weapons, that specify protocols of 
     communication and coordination between Federal, State, and 
     local actors, as well as between different Federal actors, 
     and ensure that resources required to carry out the plans are 
     obtained and put into place; and
       ``(12) perform any other relevant responsibilities the 
     Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(c) Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, on the date described in paragraph (4), each program and 
     function described in paragraph (3) shall be transferred to, 
     and administered by the Center.

[[Page 4455]]

       ``(2) Related transfers.--Personnel employed in connection 
     with the programs and functions described in paragraph (3), 
     and amounts available for carrying out such programs and 
     functions shall be transferred to the Center. Such transfer 
     of amounts does not affect the availability of the amounts 
     with respect to the purposes for which the amounts may be 
     expended.
       ``(3) Programs and functions described.--The programs and 
     functions described in this paragraph are all programs and 
     functions that--
       ``(A) relate to bioterrorism preparedness and response; and
       ``(B) were previously dispersed among the various centers 
     that comprise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       ``(4) Date described.--The date described in this paragraph 
     is the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2116. A bill to reform the program of block grants to States for 
temporary assistance for needy families to help States address the 
importance of adequate, affordable housing in promoting family progress 
towards self-sufficiency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Welfare Reform and Housing Act. This bill contains measures to improve 
access to adequate and affordable housing for families eligible for 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, benefits.
  It is essential that low-income families struggling to make the 
transition from welfare to work have access to affordable, quality 
housing options. Families with housing affordability problems are often 
forced to move frequently, which disrupts work schedules and 
jeopardizes employment. Many of the affordable housing options are 
located in areas that have limited employment opportunities and are 
located a long distance from centers of job growth. Furthermore, high 
housing costs can rob low-wage workers of a majority of their income, 
leaving insufficient funds for child care, food, transportation, and 
other basic necessities.
  Maintaining stable and affordable housing is critically important to 
holding down a job, yet an alarming number of low-income families do 
not have access to affordable housing. The data from Massachusetts is 
shocking: in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the fair market rent 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, a 
minimum-wage worker would have to work 105 hours per week; in 1995, 
2,900 poor families used private homeless shelters, while in 2000 the 
number grew to 4,300, with a majority of these families being low-wage 
workers who had once been on welfare. Lack of affordable housing is not 
a problem exclusive to Massachusetts. The Brookings Institution found 
that nearly three-fifths of poor renting families nationwide pay more 
than half of their income for rent or live in seriously substandard 
housing. Nationwide there are only 39 affordable housing units 
available for rent for every 100 low-income families needing housing. 
And for the fourth year in a row, rents have increased faster than 
inflation. We must address the issue of affordable housing during 
reauthorization of the welfare law because many low-income families hit 
this formidable roadblock on their path to employment.
  Though access to affordable housing is often left out of the 
discussion of welfare reform, it is crucial that we address this issue 
during our reauthorization of the welfare reform law this year. The 
welfare reform legislation will not allocate considerable new funds to 
increase affordable housing opportunities, however, modifications to 
the TANF statute can be made to address the problem by other means. 
That is why today I am introducing the Welfare Reform and Housing Act. 
This legislation will address the housing issue in the context of 
welfare reform in six major ways:
  First, the measure will make it simpler for states to use TANF funds 
to provide ongoing housing assistance. TANF-funded housing subsidies 
provided for more than four months would be considered ``non-
assistance'' instead of ``assistance''. By considering these subsidies 
as ``non-assistance,'' states that want to implement housing assistance 
programs using TANF funds will not have to work within the constraints 
of current Health and Human Services rules surrounding ``assistance'' 
subsidies.
  Second, the bill would encourage states to consider housing needs as 
a factor in TANF planning and implementation. My legislation would 
direct the Department of Health and Human Services to work with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to gather increased and 
improved data on the housing status of families receiving TANF and the 
location of places of employment in relation to families' housing. 
States will be required to consider the housing status of TANF 
recipients and former recipients in TANF planning.
  Third, the legislation would allow states to determine what 
constitutes ``minor rehabilitation costs'' payable with TANF funds. It 
is now permissible to use TANF funds for ``minor rehabilitation'' but 
there is no guidance from HHS on what types or cost of repairs are 
allowable, making it difficult for states to determine the extent to 
which using TANF funds in this area is permissible. By allowing states 
to define what constitutes ``minor rehabilitation,'' more states with 
similar needs will follow suit. A recent study of the health of current 
and former welfare recipients found that non-working TANF recipients 
were nearly 50 percent more likely than working former recipients to 
have two or more problems with their housing conditions. Research has 
shown that poor housing conditions often can cause or exacerbate health 
problems.
  Fourth, my bill would encourage cooperation among welfare agencies 
and agencies that administer federal housing subsidies. By improving 
the dialogue between public housing agencies and state welfare 
agencies, the two groups will be able to enter into agreements on how 
to promote the economic stability of public housing residents who are 
receiving or have received TANF benefits.
  Fifth, the legislation would authorize HHS and HUD to conduct a joint 
demonstration to explore the effectiveness of a variety of service-
enriched and supportive housing models for TANF families with multiple 
barriers to work, including homeless families.
  Finally, my bill would clarify that legal immigrant victims of 
domestic violence eligible for TANF and other welfare-related benefits 
are also eligible for housing benefits. The proposal would ensure that 
abused immigrant women seeking protection under the 1994 Violence 
Against Women Act that are also eligible for other federal benefit 
programs have access to federal housing programs under section 214 of 
the Housing and Community Development Act.
  Recent proposals made by the Administration and some members of 
Congress aim to increase work requirements for families receiving TANF 
funds. Therefore it is important that we are committed to ensuring that 
low-income families have a fair chance at employment. We have made 
progress addressing many barriers to work for low-income families such 
as child care, job training, and transportation. But in order to fully 
support families make the transition to work we must address the 
shortage of adequate and affordable housing. The Welfare Reform and 
Housing Act brings housing into the welfare reform dialogue and aims to 
help ameliorate the housing problem so that low-income families leaving 
welfare have a chance to succeed in the work force.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Reed, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2117. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
Act of 1990 to reauthorize the Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
Senators Snowe, Jeffords, DeWine, Breaux, Reed, Rockefeller, and 
Collins. By joining together on this legislation, we are indicating a 
strong bipartisan consensus to invest in both

[[Page 4456]]

improving the quality of child care and expanding assistance to low 
income working families.
  It is significant that we are joining together today not only in a 
bipartisan manner, but also as members of the HELP and Finance 
Committees in recognition of the support and neccessity of child care 
assistance.
  Today we are introducing legislation to reauthorize the Child Care 
and Development Block Grant. We are calling this legislation the 
``Access to High Quality Child Care Act'', because it's about time that 
we put the focus on ``Development'' back into the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant. Children are 20 percent of our population, but 
100 percent of our future.
  Today, 78 percent of mothers with school-age children are working. 65 
percent of mothers with children under 6 are working. And, more than 
half of mothers with infants are working.
  Most parents are simply not home full-time anymore. Many would like 
to be. For those who are, I introduced legislation in the Senate to 
provide a tax credit for stay-at-home parents. Because they, too, 
deserve support in their efforts to raise their children.
  But most families don't have a choice. If the kids are going to eat, 
go to school, and have a roof over their heads, both parents must work. 
I don't know of any working parents who think that balancing work and 
family is easy. It's not.
  Since 1996, the number of families receiving child care assistance 
has grown dramatically to about 2 million children today. But, for as 
many children who receive assistance, available child care funds reach 
only one out of seven eligible children.
  Child care in too many communities is not affordable. And in too many 
more, it's not available, or, even worse, of dubious quality.
  About 14 million children under the age of 6 are in some type of 
child care arrangement every day. This includes about 6 million 
infants. The cost of care averages between $4,000 and $10,000 a year, 
more than the cost of tuition at any state university.
  Far too many of America's parents are left with far too little 
choice.
  Nearly 20 States currently have waiting lists for child care 
assistance. Every State has difficulty meeting child care needs. No 
state serves every eligible child.
  Now, I know that there are some who say that we don't need more money 
for child care, that during the last few years we have pumped billions 
more into child care. But, I think we have a responsibility to look at 
what has happened over the last few years as well.
  The welfare caseload dropped by 1.8 million families from 1996 to 
1999. The majority of welfare leavers are now employed in low wage 
jobs.
  The share of TANF families working or participating in work-related 
activities while receiving TANF has soared to nearly 900,000 in fiscal 
year 99.
  Between 1996 and 1999, the number of employed single mothers grew 
from 1.8 million to 2.7 million.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, there has been a 
marked increase in single mothers working, from 63.5 percent in 1996 to 
73 percent in 2001.
  But, let's face it. Most welfare leavers are leaving for low wage 
jobs. On average, they are making $7 or $8 an hour. They are working, 
but they are still struggling to get by. Many low wage parents move 
from one low wage job to another, but rarely to a high wage job. 
Therefore, even over time, these parents still need child care 
assistance to stay employed.
  I am very concerned that the Administration's welfare reauthorization 
plan, with no additional funds for child care, will result in States 
shifting assistance from the working poor to those on welfare. House 
Republicans joined with Secretary Thompson on Wednesday to announce the 
introduction of the President's welfare plan in the House. One change 
they made to address child care needs was to allow states additional 
flexibility to transfer 50 percent of TANF funds to child care instead 
of 30 percent under current law.
  Since States are already spending all of their TANF money and the 
Administration's welfare plan adds significant additional work 
requirements for TANF recipients, I just don't see what giving the 
States additional flexibility buys them in child care dollars. At best, 
it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking cash assistance payments away 
from welfare parents to pay for child care for working TANF parents. 
That makes no sense. So, instead of robbing assistance from the working 
poor to pay for child care assistance for welfare recipients, states 
would rob welfare assistance directly from the worst off who are not 
working to pay for child care for those on welfare who are working? 
What's the logic? How does this help anyone?
  We held two hearings on child care in March. At one hearing, a woman 
from Maine testified who earns about $18,000 a year, pays half her 
income in child care every week, but remains on a waiting list to 
receive assistance. In the meantime, she and her two year old sleep on 
her grandmother's couch because she can't afford a place of her own.
  At another hearing, a woman from Florida with $13,000 in earnings a 
year recently lost her child care assistance because in Florida 
families working their way off TANF have only 2 years of transitional 
child care. After that, they must join the waiting list of some 48,000 
children. Because she lost her child care assistance and the state 
waiting list is so long, this woman may have to return to welfare.
  I've heard some say the answer is flexibility, that if we give the 
States more flexibility, then they will step up to the plate. A more 
realistic prediction would be that if we give states the resources, 
they will step up to the plate.
  Let me tell you what flexibility without sufficient resources leads 
to: low eligibility levels, no outreach, low provider reimbursement 
rates, high co-pays, and waiting lists. Sound familiar? That's right. 
With the cost of child care today, even with additional resources 
provided over the last several years, too many of the states are forced 
to restrict access to low income working parents. Assistance that is 
provided often limits parents' choices.
  We can do better than this. Too often I hear about low income 
families stringing together whatever care they can find so that they 
can hold their jobs. For many this means Grandma one day, an aunt the 
next day, an uncle the following day, and then maybe the aunt's 
boyfriend.
  It's no wonder that 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that 
half or more of their students are not ready for kindergarten.
  We need to look at these issues in an integrated manner. The 
education bill that the President recently signed will require schools 
to test every child every year from 3rd through 8th grade, and the 
results of those tests will be used to hold schools accountable.
  But, if we expect children to be on par by third grade, we need to 
look at how they start school. The learning gap doesn't begin in 
kindergarten, it is first noticed in kindergarten.
  If we are serious about education reform, we need to look at the 
child care settings children are in and figure out how to strengthen 
them. Seventy-five percent of children under 5 in working families are 
in some type of child care arrangement. Too often it is of poor 
quality.
  The bill we are introducing today is geared toward improving the 
quality of care to promote school readiness while expanding child care 
assistance to more working poor families.
  The Child Care and Development Block Grant is designed to give 
parents maximum choice among child care providers. In our bill, we 
retain parental choice, but provide States with a number of ways to 
help child care providers improve the quality of care that they 
provide.
  We set aside 5 percent of child care funds to promote workforce 
development, helping States to improve child care provider compensation 
and benefits, offer scholarships for training in early childhood 
development, initiate or maintain career ladders for childhood care 
professional development, foster partnerships with colleges and 
``resource & referral'', R&Rs, organizations to promote teacher 
training in

[[Page 4457]]

the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children, 
including preliteracy and oral language so necessary for school 
readiness.
  We set aside 5 percent of child care funds to help States increase 
the reimbursement rate for child care providers to ensure that parents 
have real choices among quality providers. Under current law, child 
care payment rates are supposed to be sufficient ``to ensure equal 
access for eligible children to comparable child care services in the 
State or substate area that are provided to children whose parents are 
not eligible to receive assistance''. But, low State reimbursement 
rates do not offer parents comparable care.
  The children of working parents need quality child care if they are 
to enter school ready to learn. Yet, 30 States require no training in 
early childhood development before a teacher walks into a child care 
classroom. Forty-two States require no training in early childhood 
development before a family day care provider opens her home to 
unrelated children.
  Our bill would require States to set training standards, just as they 
are required to do now for health and safety under current law. Such 
training would go beyond CPR and first aid to include training in the 
social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children.
  Relatives would be exempt, but through the quality funding in CCDBG, 
States could partner with colleges and R&Rs to provide training to 
relatives and informal caregivers on a voluntary basis. Initial 
evaluations in Connecticut of such efforts show that relatives and 
informal caregivers are voluntarily participating and are feeling 
better about themselves and their interactions with the children have 
improved.
  Leading studies have found that early investments in children can 
reduce the likelihood of being held back in school, reduce the need for 
special education, reduce the dropout rate of high school students, and 
reduce juvenile crime arrest rates.
  If we don't improve both the quality of child care that our children 
now spend so much time in and expand access to child care assistance to 
more of the working poor, we will be in danger of missing the boat on a 
whole generation of children.
  I think I speak for all of the cosponsors of this legislation that we 
hope to mark up child care in conjunction with the Finance Committee 
consideration of welfare reform.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to join my good friend and 
colleague Senator Dodd, in introducing the ``Access to High Quality 
Child Care Act of 2002.'' This legislation seeks to build upon 
Congress' efforts in 1996 to reform the Nation's welfare system and 
with it, overhaul the Nation's largest child care assistance program, 
the Child Care Development Block Grant.
  One of the most important tasks before Congress this session is the 
reauthorization of two critical public assistance laws, the landmark 
1996 welfare reform law, and the Child Care Development Block Grant. 
Together, these two programs, which are inextricably linked, comprise 
the backbone for our Nation's support infrastructure for working 
families.
  The 1996 welfare law reformed the entire nature of the welfare 
system, ending welfare as a way of life and making it instead a 
temporary program, providing a hand up instead of a hand out to 
families making the transition from welfare to work. The Child Care 
Development Block Grant, working with the welfare law, provides more 
than $4.8 billion for child care in 2002, giving assistance to those 
families that are in transition as well as those who have already 
successfully made it out of the welfare system, and helping them stay 
out of the welfare system by helping them meet the high cost of child 
care. The result is that since 1996, with more parents working, more 
children than ever before are receiving child care subsidy assistance.
  The key to the successful welfare reform, as witnessed by the 52 
percent decline in welfare caseloads since 1996, is the system of work 
supports that provides assistance to working parents to help them make 
ends meet while in low paying jobs, and sustain the family's successful 
transition from welfare to self sufficiency. And perhaps the most 
critical of all work supports is child care. Without access to quality 
child care, a parent is left with two choices, to leave their child in 
a unsafe, and often unsupervised situation, or to not work at all. 
Frankly, neither option is acceptable.
  This is the underlying philosophy behind the legislation we introduce 
today: to ensure that working parents have access to affordable, high 
quality child care.
  From the onset, our goal has been to reauthorize the Child Care 
Development Block Grant to ensure the working parents of America can 
continue their jobs with the peace of mind that their children are in a 
safe and quality child care situation, whether it is at a child care 
center, a relative's home, or in their own home.
  We do so by increasing the amount of funding set aside to raise the 
quality of care, giving states the ability to improve strengthen their 
child care workforce. States will have the option to choose how they 
will do so, but options include partnering with community colleges and 
Resource and Referral agencies to provide training in early childhood 
development to the workforce, or by simply increasing child care 
worker's wages. Astonishingly, the national average salary for a child 
care worker is between $15,000 and $16,000, and usually with few 
benefits. This legislation would give states even greater flexibility 
to decide how to improve quality using even greater resources.
  Additionally, our legislation simplifies and streamlines the use of 
federal welfare dollars for child care, whether it be spent directly on 
child care or whether it is transferred to the Child Care Development 
Block Grant, while holding these expenditures to the same health and 
safety standards as those under the CCDBG. As a member of the Senate 
Finance Committee, which has the jurisdiction over the welfare 
reauthorization, fixing what's wrong with the rules regarding the use 
of federal welfare funding for child care is a high priority of mine as 
welfare works its way through Committee consideration.
  Approximately 14 million children under the age of six are regularly 
in child care, corresponding with the fact that 65 percent of mothers 
with children under age six are in the workforce. Considering that the 
goal of welfare reform is to move people off the welfare rolls and onto 
payrolls, offering help with the cost of child care is one sure way to 
ensure that parents can work. Child care is expensive and often 
difficult to find. In some states, child care costs as much as four 
years in a public college. And that's even before considering the 
additional cost of caring for infants, or for odd hour care for those 
working nights or weekends, or care for children with special needs.
  And the fact is, we know child care pays off in encouraging more 
parents on welfare to find and keep a job. States have devoted 
significant funding to child care assistance, and have redirected the 
bulk of unspent federal welfare dollars under the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families block grant, TANF, and state Maintenance of Effort, 
MOE, dollars to child care assistance. In 2000 alone, states 
transferred $2.4 billion in TANF dollars to the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant, and spent an additional $1.5 billion in direct 
TANF dollars for child care. Why? Because they realize that child care 
assistance keeps parents working and that is the key to self 
sufficiency.
  However, since parents who are making the transition from welfare to 
work typically hold minimum wage jobs, those workers' ability to place 
their children in quality child care often stretches their families' 
budget to the limit. And while these families may no longer be in need 
of, or eligible for, cash assistance, without child care assistance, 
they may be forced back on the welfare rolls.
  The fact of the matter is, quality affordable child care remains 
difficult to afford for families nationwide. This reality was made 
clear last month, when

[[Page 4458]]

a young woman from Maine, Sheila Merkinson, testified before Senator 
Dodd's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, that the 
cost of her son's child care absorbs 48 percent of her weekly income, 
leaving her to provide for her family with only half of her $18,000 a 
year earnings. Sadly, Sheila's situation is not unique.
  Our legislation will help Sheila, and thousands like her, by 
improving the current child care delivery system, and increases the 
funding for the Child Care Development Fund to meet the needs 
established by the welfare work requirements. This link not only makes 
sense, it also is critical, responsible and essential for the future of 
our nation's children and families.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to thank Senators Dodd, 
Snowe, DeWine, Breaux, Reed, Rockefeller, and Collins for their hard 
work and dedication to helping provide working families with access to 
high-quality child care, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of 
this important legislation. Senator Dodd and I have been working 
together on this and other critical issues affecting children for over 
twenty years now. And, I look forward to continue working with him and 
my esteemed colleagues as we move forward in helping children and 
families across the country.
  A recent Administration report reveals that as many as 75 percent of 
children under the age of five in this country are in some form of 
child care arrangement. And, as more mothers of young children enter 
the workforce, working families need even greater access to higher 
quality child care. In my State of Vermont, approximately 87 percent of 
Vermont children under the age of six live with two working parents, 
and only 56 percent of the estimated need for child care in Vermont is 
met through regulated care.
  The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the quality of early 
child care and education has a significant effect on children's health 
and development and their readiness for school. According to a recent 
study, children participating in quality, comprehensive early care and 
education programs had a 29 percent higher rate of high school 
completion, a 41 percent reduction in special education placement, a 40 
percent reduction in the rate of grade retention, a 33 percent lower 
rate of juvenile arrest, and a 42 percent reduction in arrest for a 
violent offense.
  All other industrialized nations acknowledge the great value of early 
care and education, and make the care and education of toddlers and 
pre-schoolers a mandatory part of their public education system, and 
pay for it. Unfortunately, the United States does not.
  Quality child care is available in the United States to young 
parents, but in many cases, it costs more than ten thousand dollars per 
year. This is almost twice the cost of going to many public colleges.
  Earlier last week, the President proposed an initiative to strengthen 
early learning. He stated that he wants every child to enter school 
ready to learn. I am pleased that the President is making the care and 
education of our youngest children a priority. However, if we really 
want to help all children enter school ready to learn, then we need to 
actually provide the resources to do so. The costs of quality child 
care exceed what most working families can afford. Yet, unbelievably, 
the President has proposed NO additional funding to help families gain 
access to quality child care. This just doesn't make any sense.
  Many States across the country are working hard to improve the 
quality and accessibility of child care, but they simply do not have 
the resources to provide sufficient access and quality. For example, 
the State of Vermont spends approximately $33 million to provide 
working families with access to child care and to improve the quality 
of child care around the State. For a small State like Vermont, this is 
a lot of money, but is hardly sufficient to provide the type of access 
and quality necessary to make sure all kids enter school ready to 
learn. The State would need an additional $40 to $50 million to 
effectuate real change.
  And further, due to the recent economic downturn, a majority of the 
States has reported revenues well below expected levels. Accordingly, 
while the States want to do more to further the quality and 
accessibility of child care, many States will actually have less money 
to spend on helping families with quality care and education. Again, 
the President has proposed no additional funding to help States provide 
families with quality child care. On the contrary, we must 
significantly increase funding for child care to help States and local 
communities provide this vital support to working families and their 
children.
  I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the new Access to High 
Quality Child Care Act of 2002.
  The 2002 ACCESS Act not only helps provide families with greater 
access to child care, but also significantly raises the bar on the 
quality of child care in this country. The 2002 ACCESS Act provides 
States with real resources to help them improve the quality of child 
care for working families. It allows for great flexibility, yet holds 
States accountable for making real quality improvements.
  Research shows that qualified and well-trained providers are critical 
to supporting and enhancing the cognitive and social development of 
children in child care. The 2002 ACCESS Act helps States strengthen the 
quality of the child care workforce by setting aside a dedicated 
portion of funds to support State initiatives that improve both the 
qualifications and the compensation of child care providers.
  The ACCESS Act also helps States increase child care provider 
reimbursement rates to more accurately reflect the true cost of care. 
It helps States provide training and technical assistance to informal 
and family child care providers as well as center-based providers. It 
helps States develop and expand resource and referral services. It 
helps families gain access to quality child care for infants and 
toddlers, and children with special needs. It provides oversight to 
child care centers situated on Federal property. And, the ACCESS Act 
also helps States leverage funding to provide technical assistance, and 
share in the cost of construction and improvement of child care 
facilities and equipment.
  I believe that we all recognize that the foundation for learning 
begins in the earliest years of life. However, a failure to nurture 
development in these early years is a lost opportunity forever. The 
2002 ACCESS Act provides States and local communities with a real 
opportunity to nurture that development and improve the quality of care 
for our youngest children in this country so that all of our children 
enter school ready to learn. I urge my colleagues to support this bold, 
yet critical initiative, so that indeed, every child truly has an 
opportunity to learn.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senators Snowe and Dodd, in introducing the Access to High Quality 
Child Care Act, ACCESS. This legislation would reauthorize the Child 
Care and Development Block Grant through 2007 and rename it the ACCESS 
Act.
  We all know that our children are the most vulnerable members of our 
population and our most valuable resources. Today, 75 percent of 
children less than five years of age are in some kind of regular 
childcare arrangement. Parents need to feel confident that the people 
caring for their children are giving the love and support that children 
deserve. The bill we are introducing today would help give parents that 
kind of piece of mind.
  There are two pieces of the ACCESS Act that I would like to focus on 
because they are vital to improving the accessibility of high quality 
care. Last year, Senator Dodd and I introduced the Child Care 
Facilities Financing Act, which uses small investments to help leverage 
existing community resources. In my home State of Ohio, and throughout 
the country, resources for the development or enhancement of space are 
extremely scarce for childcare facilities. This leveraging approach has 
been successful in helping expand childcare capacity. Let me give you 
an example.
  Wonder World in Akron, OH, is an urban childcare center located in an

[[Page 4459]]

old church. This facility was in dire need of repairs. The upstairs 
space was poorly lit and not well ventilated, and the downstairs was a 
damp basement. The childcare rooms had no windows and no direct access 
to bathrooms or a kitchen. There was no outdoor play space. This 
environment, itself, had a negative effect on the children, no matter 
how dedicated the caregivers. In spite of these dismal conditions, the 
center had a waiting list. There were no other choices for affordable 
childcare facilities within the community!
  Fortunately, in Ohio, we have the Ohio Community Development Finance 
Fund, OCDFF, which is a statewide nonprofit organization that works 
with local organizations in low-income communities. This fund was able 
to coordinate public and private monies to build a new eight-room 
childcare facility, a facility that serves approximately 200 children! 
It is programs like OCDFF that are possible under the Child Care 
Facilities Fund. The ACCESS Act includes the language from the Child 
Care Facilities Fund bill that Senator Dodd and I introduced, which 
authorizes $50 million dollars for the Child Care Facilities Fund.
  The second most important part of our ACCESS Act is a section that 
contains vital language to help provide emergency childcare services. 
This section would allow parents to access quality care when their 
childcare provider is sick or has a family emergency. The need for this 
type of care was made clear by a tragic incident that happened in Ohio, 
when little two-year-old Charles Knight's mother had to go to work and 
had no one available to care for Charles and his siblings.
  The boy's father was supposed to baby-sit, but he failed to show up 
that day. Charles' mother tried to find a neighbor or family member to 
care for her children, but no one was available. Tragically, she made 
the poor decision to leave her sleeping children unattended, so she 
could work her 12-hour shift. She thought her boys' father would 
eventually show up and baby-sit while she worked.
  The father never arrived. Charles was able to climb up on the 
balcony. This young, unsupervised child fell nine stories off the 
apartment balcony to his death. His mother was charged with 
manslaughter, and his father was charged with child neglect.
  This sad incident just might have been prevented with emergency 
childcare centers. With access to such a center, Charles' mother could 
have gone to work knowing her children were safe and secure.
  Just last month, Summit County, OH, started a program called 
ChildCare NOW in response to an alarming spike in child death and 
injuries. ChildCare NOW is being offered at 17 centers in the Akron-
Canton area of Ohio. These childcare centers are opening their doors to 
many parents whose baby-sitter cancels at the last minute. This program 
is not meant as a permanent childcare replacement but when an 
``emergency'' arises, these are safe alternatives to parental care.
  The language I have included in this bill, emphasizes that local and 
State childcare agencies may use funds on emergency childcare programs, 
programs like ChildCare NOW. More importantly, the next time a mother 
must chose between going to work and leaving her children all alone or 
staying at home and losing a day's pay, she will have a third option, 
to leave her children in an emergency child care center. I think that 
is an important option that we must give to working mothers. It is my 
hope that this language will prevent future tragedies like the death of 
two-year-old Charles Knight.
  Once again, I want to thank Senator Snowe and Senator Dodd for their 
work on the ACCESS Act. This bill is necessary for parents who work, 
especially parents who have worked hard to get off welfare. They should 
be confident that their children are receiving quality care.
  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
2002 ACCESS Act. It is imperative that the Congress continue its 
commitment to low-income families by presenting the President with a 
bipartisan bill reauthorizing the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant.
  I share the Administration's goal to ``Leave No Child Behind.'' 
Children should not be the victims of welfare reform, left behind with 
inconsistent child care accommodations that do not adequately prepare 
them for the challenges to come. It is precisely this cycle of 
dependency and poverty that welfare reform was intended to end.
  In 1996, we fundamentally changed the mentality of welfare from 
dependence to independence by creating the Temporary Assistance to 
Needy Families TANF, block grant. At the same time, we made a 
commitment to poor families that were sent into the work force at low 
wages that they would be supported with access to quality child care.
  Reliable child care is directly related to job retention. A parent 
cannot be in two places at once, and an employer is not likely to 
retain an employee that is unreliable at work due to a lack of 
consistent care for their child. It is not just about getting a job, 
this is about helping families keep their jobs and move up the career 
ladder.
  In Louisiana, I hear over and over again about access to safe and 
affordable child care. The legislation being introduced today will 
ensure that child care provided to these families is not only 
affordable, but that it meets certain safety and quality standards to 
ensure children are placed in an environment where they can grow and 
learn.
  Access to child care is often limited by states to families with the 
lowest incomes. National studies show only 12-15 percent of children 
eligible for federally subsidized child care get it. And in many rural 
areas, there are no child care providers at all. So as Congress debates 
increasing work requirements for people on welfare, the increasing need 
for working families to have quality child care must also be taken into 
consideration.
  I commend Senators Dodd and Snowe for their efforts to increase 
access to child care for low income families, while improving the 
quality of child care services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 2118. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act and the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to implement the 
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Protocol 
on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Convention on Long-Range 
Transboundary Air Pollution; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the POPs 
Implementation Act of 2002.
  POPs, or persistent organic pollutants, are chemicals that are 
persistent, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify 
through the food chain, and are toxic to humans. These substances 
travel across international boundaries, creating a circle of pollution 
requiring a global solution.
  In April 2001, one year ago, President Bush announced his support for 
the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, and in 
May 2001, the U.S. signed the Convention. I share the President's 
enthusiasm for this sound and workable treaty that targets chemicals 
detrimental to human health and the environment.
  The Stockholm Convention seeks the elimination or restriction of 
production and use of all intentionally produced POPs. The POPs that 
are to be initially eliminated include the pesticides aldrin, 
chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene, and the 
industrial chemicals hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls, 
PCBs. Use of the pesticide DDT is limited to disease control until 
safe, effective, and affordable alternatives are identified. The 
Convention also seeks the continuing minimization and, where feasible, 
ultimate elimination of releases of unintentionally produced POPs such 
as dioxins and furans.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, TSCA, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,

[[Page 4460]]

FIFRA, to implement the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the Protocol 
on POPs to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 
These are the first amendments to TSCA since its enactment in October 
1976.
  Currently in the U.S., the registrations for nine of the twelve POPs 
covered by the Stockholm Convention have been canceled, the manufacture 
of PCBs has been banned, and stringent controls have been placed on the 
release of the other covered chemicals. The POPs Implementation Act of 
2002 provides EPA with the authority, which it currently does not have, 
to prohibit the manufacture for export of the twelve POPs and POPs that 
are identified in the future. In addition, this legislation provides a 
science-based process consistent with the Stockholm Convention for 
listing additional chemicals exhibiting POPs characteristics, thereby 
attempting to avoid the further production and use of POPs. To assist 
in this goal, the National Academy of Sciences is directed to develop 
new strategies to screen candidate POPs and new sampling methodologies 
to identify future POPs.
  Although a previous EPA draft included a mechanism for adding new 
chemicals, the Administration's current POPs implementation package 
does not. The Stockholm Convention was not intended to be a static 
agreement, as it explicitly provides for the addition of new chemicals. 
If we are to be most effective in globally reducing these dangerous 
chemicals, we must fully commit to this treaty.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2119. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the tax treatment of inverted corporate entities and of 
transactions with such entities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to offer a bill on behalf 
of Senator Baucus and myself, to address the growing problem of 
corporate inversions. Our legislation, the ``Reversing the Expatriation 
of Profits Offshore,'' REPO Act, will stem the rising tide of corporate 
inversions.
  It's tax season. Citizens across America are filing their taxes this 
week. They're paying their taxes. A lot of taxes. But some corporate 
citizens are relaxing this tax season. They've moved their mailing 
address out of the country. They've set up a filing cabinet and a mail 
box overseas. This way, they escape from millions of dollars of Federal 
taxes.
  These corporate expatriations aren't illegal. But they're sure 
immoral. During a war on terrorism, coming out of a recession, everyone 
ought to be pulling together. But instead, these companies are using 
recession and terrorism to get out of the United States. If companies 
don't have their hearts in America, they ought to get out.
  Adding insult to injury, some of these companies have fat contracts 
with the government. So they'll take other people's tax dollars to make 
a profit, but they won't pay their share of taxes to keep America 
strong.
  The bill Chairman Baucus and I are introducing today will place 
corporate inversions on the endangered species list. Our bill requires 
the IRS to look at where a company has its heart and soul, not where it 
has a filing cabinet and a mail box. If a company remains controlled in 
the United States, our bill requires the company to pay its fair share 
of taxes, plain and simple.
  When I am firmly committed to halting corporate inversions, I also 
recognize that the rising tide of corporate expatriations demonstrates 
that our international tax rules are deeply flawed. In many cases, 
those flaws seriously undermine an American company's ability to 
compete in the global marketplace. This competitive disadvantage is 
often cited by companies that engage in inversion transactions.
  I believe that we need to bring our international tax system in line 
with our open market trade policies, and wish to affirm for the record 
that reform of our international tax laws is necessary for our U.S. 
businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Moreover, 
those U.S. companies that rejected doing a corporate inversion are left 
to struggle with the complexity and competitive impediments of our 
international tax rules. This is an unjust result for companies that 
chose to remain in the United States of America. I am committed to 
remedying this inequity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a technical explanation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2119

       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 ``Reversing the Expatriation 
     of Profits Offshore Act''.

     SEC. 2. TAX TREATMENT OF INVERTED CORPORATE ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter C of chapter 80 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to provisions affecting more 
     than one subtitle) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 7874. RULES RELATING TO INVERTED CORPORATE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Inverted Corporations Treated as Domestic 
     Corporations.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a foreign incorporated entity is 
     treated as an inverted domestic corporation, then, 
     notwithstanding section 7701(a)(4), such entity shall be 
     treated for purposes of this title as a domestic corporation.
       ``(2) Inverted domestic corporation.--For purposes of this 
     section, a foreign incorporated entity shall be treated as an 
     inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a 
     series of related transactions)--
       ``(A) the entity completes after March 20, 2002, the direct 
     or indirect acquisition of substantially all of the 
     properties held directly or indirectly by a domestic 
     corporation or substantially all of the properties 
     constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership,
       ``(B) after the acquisition at least 80 percent of the 
     stock (by vote or value) of the entity is held--
       ``(i) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation, or
       ``(ii) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership, and
       ``(C) the expanded affiliated group which after the 
     acquisition includes the entity does not have substantial 
     business activities in the foreign country in which or under 
     the law of which the entity is created or organized when 
     compared to the total business activities of such expanded 
     affiliated group.
       ``(b) Preservation of Domestic Tax Base In Certain 
     Inversion Transactions To Which Subsection (a) Does Not 
     Apply.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a foreign incorporated entity would 
     be treated as an inverted domestic corporation with respect 
     to an acquired entity if either--
       ``(A) subsection (a)(2)(A) were applied by substituting `on 
     or before March 20, 2002' for `after March 20, 2002' and 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) were applied by substituting `more than 
     50 percent' for `at least 80 percent', or
       ``(B) subsection (a)(2)(B) were applied by substituting 
     `more than 50 percent' for `at least 80 percent',
     then the rules of subsection (c) shall apply to any inversion 
     gain of the acquired entity during the applicable period and 
     the rules of subsection (d) shall apply to any related party 
     transaction of the acquired entity during the applicable 
     period. This subsection shall not apply for any taxable year 
     if subsection (a) applies to such foreign incorporated entity 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(2) Acquired entity.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `acquired entity' means the 
     domestic corporation or partnership substantially all of the 
     properties of which are directly or indirectly acquired in an 
     acquisition described in subsection (a)(2)(A) to which this 
     subsection applies.
       ``(B) Aggregation rules.--Any domestic person bearing a 
     relationship described in section 267(b) or 707(b) to an 
     acquired entity shall be treated as an acquired entity with 
     respect to the acquisition described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Applicable period.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `applicable period' means the 
     period--
       ``(i) beginning on the first date properties are acquired 
     as part of the acquisition described in subsection (a)(2)(A) 
     to which this subsection applies, and
       ``(ii) ending on the date which is 10 years after the last 
     date properties are acquired as part of such acquisition.
       ``(B) Special rule for inversions occurring before march 
     21, 2002.--In the case of any acquired entity to which 
     paragraph (1)(A) applies, the applicable period shall be the 
     10-year period beginning on January 1, 2002.

[[Page 4461]]

       ``(c) Tax on Inversion Gains May Not Be Offset.--If 
     subsection (b) applies--
       ``(1) In general.--The taxable income of an acquired entity 
     for any taxable year which includes any portion of the 
     applicable period shall in no event be less than the 
     inversion gain of the entity for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Credits not allowed against tax on inversion gain.--
     Credits shall be allowed against the tax imposed by chapter 1 
     on an acquired entity for any taxable year described in 
     paragraph (1) only to the extent such tax exceeds the product 
     of--
       ``(A) the amount of taxable income described in paragraph 
     (1) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) the highest rate of tax specified in section 
     11(b)(1).
       ``(3) Special rules for partnerships.--In the case of an 
     acquired entity which is a partnership--
       ``(A) the limitations of this subsection shall apply at the 
     partner rather than the partnership level,
       ``(B) the inversion gain of any partner for any taxable 
     year shall be equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) the partner's distributive share of inversion gain of 
     the partnership for such taxable year, plus
       ``(ii) gain required to be recognized for the taxable year 
     by the partner under section 367(a), 741, or 1001, or under 
     any other provision of chapter 1, by reason of the transfer 
     during the applicable period of any partnership interest of 
     the partner in such partnership to the foreign incorporated 
     entity, and
       ``(C) the highest rate of tax specified in the rate 
     schedule applicable to the partner under chapter 1 shall be 
     substituted for the rate of tax under paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(4) Inversion gain.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `inversion gain' means the gain required to be 
     recognized under section 304, 311(b), 367, 1001, or 1248, or 
     under any other provision of chapter 1, by reason of the 
     transfer during the applicable period of stock or other 
     properties by an acquired entity--
       ``(A) as part of the acquisition described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A) to which subsection (b) applies, or
       ``(B) after such acquisition to a foreign related person.
       ``(5) Coordination with section 172 and minimum tax.--Rules 
     similar to the rules of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 
     860E(a) shall apply for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(d) Special Rules Applicable to Related Party 
     Transactions.--
       ``(1) Annual preapproval required.--
       ``(A) In general.--An acquired entity to which subsection 
     (b) applies shall enter into an annual preapproval agreement 
     under subparagraph (C) with the Secretary for each taxable 
     year which includes a portion of the applicable period.
       ``(B) Failures to enter agreements.--If an acquired entity 
     fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) for any 
     taxable year, then for such taxable year--
       ``(i) there shall not be allowed any deduction, or addition 
     to basis or cost of goods sold, for amounts paid or incurred, 
     or losses incurred, by reason of a transaction between the 
     acquired entity and a foreign related person,
       ``(ii) any transfer or license of intangible property (as 
     defined in section 936(h)(3)(B)) between the acquired entity 
     and a foreign related person shall be disregarded, and
       ``(iii) any cost-sharing arrangement between the acquired 
     entity and a foreign related person shall be disregarded.
       ``(C) Preapproval agreement.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `preapproval agreement' means a prefiling, 
     advance pricing, or other agreement specified by the 
     Secretary which--
       ``(i) is entered into at such time as may be specified by 
     the Secretary, and
       ``(ii) contains such provisions as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure that the requirements of sections 163(j), 
     267(a)(3), 482, and 845, and any other provision of this 
     title applicable to transactions between related persons and 
     specified by the Secretary, are met.
       ``(2) Modifications of limitation on interest deduction.--
     In the case of an acquired entity to which subsection (b) 
     applies, section 163(j) shall be applied--
       ``(A) without regard to paragraph (2)(A)(ii) thereof, and
       ``(B) by substituting `25 percent' for `50 percent' each 
     place it appears in paragraph (2)(B) thereof.
       ``(e) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Rules for application of subsection (a)(2).--In 
     applying subsection (a)(2) for purposes of subsections (a) 
     and (b), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(A) Certain stock disregarded.--There shall not be taken 
     into account in determining ownership for purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2)(B)--
       ``(i) stock held by members of the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the foreign incorporated entity, or
       ``(ii) stock of such entity which is sold in a public 
     offering related to the acquisition described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A).
       ``(B) Plan deemed in certain cases.--If a foreign 
     incorporated entity acquires directly or indirectly 
     substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation 
     or partnership during the 4-year period beginning on the date 
     which is 2 years before the ownership requirements of 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) are met, such actions shall be treated 
     as pursuant to a plan.
       ``(C) Certain transfers disregarded.--The transfer of 
     properties or liabilities (including by contribution or 
     distribution) shall be disregarded if such transfers are part 
     of a plan a principal purpose of which is to avoid the 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(D) Special rule for related partnerships.--For purposes 
     of applying subsection (a)(2) to the acquisition of a 
     domestic partnership, except as provided in regulations, all 
     partnerships which are under common control (within the 
     meaning of section 482) shall be treated as 1 partnership.
       ``(2) Expanded affiliated group.--The term `expanded 
     affiliated group' means an affiliated group as defined in 
     section 1504(a) but without regard to section 1504(b), except 
     that section 1504(a) shall be applied by substituting `more 
     than 50 percent' for `at least 80 percent' each place it 
     appears.
       ``(3) Foreign incorporated entity.--The term `foreign 
     incorporated entity' means any entity which is, or but for 
     subsection (a)(1) would be, treated as a foreign corporation 
     for purposes of this title.
       ``(4) Foreign related person.--The term `foreign related 
     person' means, with respect to any acquired entity, a foreign 
     person which--
       ``(A) bears a relationship to such entity described in 
     section 267(b) or 707(b), or
       ``(B) is under the same common control (within the meaning 
     of section 482) as such entity.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall provide such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this section, 
     including regulations providing for such adjustments to the 
     application of this section as are necessary to prevent the 
     avoidance of the purposes of this section, including the 
     avoidance of such purposes through--
       ``(1) the use of related persons, pass-through or other 
     noncorporate entities, or other intermediaries, or
       ``(2) transactions designed to have persons cease to be (or 
     not become) members of expanded affiliated groups or related 
     persons.''.
       (b) Treatment of Agreements.--
       (1) Confidentiality.--
       (A) Treatment as return information.--Section 6103(b)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to return 
     information) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (C), by inserting ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (D), and by inserting after subparagraph (D) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) any preapproval agreement under section 7874(d)(1) to 
     which any preceding subparagraph does not apply and any 
     background information related to the agreement or any 
     application for the agreement,''.
       (B) Exception from public inspection as written 
     determination.--Section 6110(b)(1)(B) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``or (D)'' and inserting ``, (D), or (E)''.
       (2) Reporting.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall include 
     with any report on advance pricing agreements required to be 
     submitted after the date of the enactment of this Act under 
     section 521(b) of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
     Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-170) a report 
     regarding preapproval agreements under section 7874(d)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Such report shall include 
     information similar to the information required with respect 
     to advance pricing agreements and shall be treated for 
     confidentiality purposes in the same manner as the reports on 
     advance pricing agreements are treated under section 
     521(b)(3) of such Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter C of chapter 80 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 7874. Rules relating to inverted corporate entities.''

     SEC. 3. REINSURANCE OF UNITED STATES RISKS IN FOREIGN 
                   JURISDICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 845(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to allocation in case of reinsurance 
     agreement involving tax avoidance or evasion) is amended by 
     striking ``source and character'' and inserting ``amount, 
     source, or character''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any risk reinsured after April 11, 2002.
                                  ____


 Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore, REPO, Act--Technical 
          Explanation of the Staff of the Committee on Finance

       Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-
     IA, and Chairman Max Baucus, D-MT, today are offering their 
     legislative response to the growing problem of corporate 
     inversions, the ``Reversing the Expatriation of Profits 
     Offshore'', REPO, Act. Following is a brief summary of the 
     REPO Act.
       In general, this legislation would curtail the tax benefits 
     sought by U.S. companies undertaking inversion transactions. 
     The legislation would apply to two types of inversion 
     transactions, which would be subject to different regimes 
     under the proposal.

[[Page 4462]]

       The first type would be a ``pure'' or nearly pure 
     inversion, in which: 1. a U.S. corporation becomes a 
     subsidiary of a foreign corporation or otherwise transfers 
     substantially all of its properties to a foreign corporation; 
     2. the former shareholders of the U.S. corporation end up 
     with 80 percent or more (by vote or value) of the stock of 
     the foreign corporation after the transaction; and 3. the 
     foreign corporation, including its subsidiaries, does not 
     have substantial business activities in its country of 
     incorporation. The legislation would deny the intended tax 
     benefits of this type of inversion by deeming the top-tier 
     foreign corporation to be a domestic corporation for all 
     purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. This proposal would be 
     effective as to inversion transactions occurring on or after 
     March 21, 2002.
       For purposes of this proposal, corporations with no 
     significant operating assets, few or no permanent employees, 
     or no significant real property in the foreign country of 
     incorporation would not be treated as meeting the substantial 
     business activities test. In addition, companies would not be 
     considered to be conducting substantial business activities 
     in the country of incorporation by merely holding board 
     meetings in the foreign country or by relocating a limited 
     number of executives to the foreign jurisdiction.
       The second type of inversion covered by the legislation 
     would be a transaction similar to the ``pure'' inversion 
     defined above, except that the 80 percent ownership threshold 
     is not met. In such a case, if a greater-than-50 percent but 
     less than 80 percent ownership threshold is met, then a 
     second set of rules would apply to these ``limited'' 
     inversions.
       Under these rules, the inversion transaction would be 
     respected, i.e., the foreign corporation would be respected 
     as foreign, but: 1. the corporate-level ``toll charge'' for 
     establishing the inverted structure would be strengthened, 
     and 2. restrictions would be placed on the company's ability 
     to reduce U.S. tax on U.S.-source income going forward. These 
     measures generally would apply for a 10-year period following 
     the inversion. This prong of the proposal would be effective 
     as to inversion transactions in this second category 
     occurring on or after March 21, 2002. It would also be 
     effective as to all structures arising from pure inversions 
     or limited inversions that are grandfathered under the 
     legislation, but it would be applied to those structures 
     prospectively.
       Under the legislation, the corporate-level ``toll charge'' 
     imposed under sections 304, 311(b), 367, 1001, 1248, or any 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to 
     the transfer of controlled foreign corporation stock or other 
     assets from a U.S. corporation to a foreign corporation would 
     be taxable, without offset by any other tax attributes, e.g., 
     net operating losses or foreign tax credits. No similar 
     ``walling-off'' of toll charges would apply to shareholder-
     level toll charges imposed under section 367(a).
       In addition, no deductions or additions to basis or cost of 
     goods sold for transactions with foreign related parties 
     would be permitted unless the taxpayer concludes an annual 
     pre-filing agreement, advance pricing agreement, or other 
     agreement with the IRS, a ``preapproval agreement'', to 
     ensure that all related-party transactions comply with all 
     relevant provisions of the Code, including sections 482, 845, 
     163(j), and 267(a)(3). Similarly, the transfer or license of 
     intangible property from a U.S. corporation to a related 
     foreign corporation would be disregarded, and cost-sharing 
     arrangements would not be respected unless approved under 
     such an agreement.
       The confidentiality and disclosure rules normally 
     applicable to advance pricing agreements would apply to all 
     preapproval agreements entered into pursuant to this 
     legislation, and the parameters for the IRS's statutorily 
     required annual APA report would be amended to require a 
     summary section for inversion transactions.
       The second set of measures also includes modifications to 
     the ``earnings stripping'' rules of section 163(j) (which 
     deny or defer deductions for certain interest paid to foreign 
     related parties), as applied to inverted corporations. The 
     legislation would eliminate the debt-equity threshold 
     generally applicable under that provision and reduce the 50 
     percent threshold for ``excess interest expense'' to 25 
     percent.
       The provisions of both prongs of this legislation also 
     would apply to certain partnership transactions similar to 
     corporate inversion transactions.
       The legislation also strengthens the present-law rules of 
     section 845(a) in a manner intended to address reinsurance 
     transactions with foreign related parties that have the 
     effect of stripping out earnings of a U.S. corporation, 
     regardless of whether an inversion transaction has occurred. 
     The legislation modifies the present-law provision permitting 
     the Treasury Department to allocate or recharacterize items 
     of investment income, premiums, deductions, assets, reserves, 
     credits or other items, or to make other adjustments, under a 
     reinsurance agreement between related parties, if necessary 
     to reflect the proper source and character of income. The 
     legislation permits such an allocation, recharacterization or 
     adjustment if necessary to reflect the proper amount, source 
     or character of income. This provision would be effective for 
     any risk reinsured after April 11, 2002.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor, with 
Senator Grassley, of this important piece of legislation. Our 
legislation, Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore, (REPO), 
Act, is designed to put the brakes on the potential rush to move U.S. 
corporate headquarters to tax havens, through increasingly popular 
transactions known as corporate inversions. Prominent U.S. companies 
are literally re-incorporating in off-shore tax havens in order to 
avoid U.S. taxes. They are, in effect, renouncing their U.S. 
citizenship to cut their tax bill.
  Tax avoidance costs honest taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each 
year. When one taxpayer, whether a corporation or an individual, 
doesn't pay their fair share of taxes, we all pay. The REPO Act cracks 
down on corporations that avoid taxes at the expense of honest, 
hardworking American taxpayers.
  The local hardware store in Butte, MT, isn't re-incorporating in 
Bermuda or one of these tax haven countries. He is keeping his company 
an American company. The companies reincorporating in tax haven 
countries, and their executives, are still physically located in the 
United States. Their executives and employees enjoy all the privileges 
afforded to honest U.S. taxpayers.
  I understand that the corporate inversion issue is complex. I also 
understand that, over the long term, we may need to consider whether 
the structure of the U.S. international tax rules creates an incentive 
for U.S. corporations to shift their operations abroad in order to 
remain competitive. For now, we are putting a stop to the erosion of 
the U.S. tax base through these tax avoidance schemes.
  Our legislation distinguishes between two types of inversions, pure 
inversions and limited inversions. A pure inversion is when a U.S. 
company becomes a subsidiary of a foreign company or shifts 
substantially all of its properties to a foreign corporation and 80 
percent of more of the shareholders in the original U.S. company are 
now shareholders in the new foreign company. The foreign company has no 
substantial business activity in the foreign tax haven country. 
Companies that hold board meetings in the tax haven country or send a 
few employees or executives to work in the tax haven country will not 
meet the substantial business activity standard. Under our legislation, 
the parent company will be treated as a U.S. company.
  A limited inversion transaction is when more than 50 percent and 
fewer than 80 percent of the shareholders are the same. The new foreign 
company is recognized as a foreign company for tax purposes but there 
is a tax cost. The company won't be able to use tax attributes, such as 
net operating losses and foreign tax credits, to offset the gain 
incurred upon inverting. Finally, the company won't be able to strip 
earnings out of the U.S. to avoid U.S. taxes.
  This week is the last week leading up to the April 15 tax filing 
deadline. Families in Montana and across the nation are sitting down at 
their kitchen tables, or at their home computers, and figuring out 
their taxes. The calculations may be complex, the tax bite may seem 
high, but by and large, with quiet patriotism, average Americans will 
step up and pay the tax they owe. They're counting on us to make sure 
that sophisticated corporations pay their fair share, as well.

                          ____________________